ONE GOD
ONE LORD
ONE SPIRIT
On the Explication of
the Apostolic Faith Today
EDITED BY HANS-GEORG LINK
ONE GOD
ONE LORD
ONE SPIRIT
Digitized by the Internet Archive
in 2017 with funding from
World Council of Churches
https://archive.org/details/wccfops2.146
ONE GOD
ONE LORD
ONE SPIRIT
On the Explication of
the Apostolic Faith Today
EDITED BY HANS-GEORG LINK
Faith and Order Paper No. 139
WCC PUBLICATIONS, GENEVA
The texts “Fullness of Faith” (Link), “We Believe in One Lord Jesus Christ”
(Ritschl), and “The Prophetic Spirit” (Link), were translated from the German by the
WCC Language Service.
Cover photo: Peter Williams
ISBN 2-8254-0906-5
© 1988 World Council of Churches, 150 route de Femey,
1211 Geneva 20, Switzerland
Typeset by Macmillan India Ltd., Bangalore 25
Printed in Switzerland
In gratitude to
Lukas Vischer
on the occasion of his 60th birthday
Table of Contents
Preface Gunther Gassmann ix
The Ecumenical Creed: Text of 381 A.D 1
Fullness of Faith: the Process of an Ecumenical Explication of the Apostolic
Faith Hans-Georg Link 2
Part I: The First Article
We Believe in One God: an Ecumenical Explication 17
We Believe in One God, Father Almighty, Maker of Heaven and Earth:
Aspects of an Ecumenical Approach to the First Article of the Creed
Dan-Ilie Ciobotea 40
Part II: The Second Article
We Believe in One Lord Jesus Christ: an Ecumenical Explication 61
We Believe in One Lord Jesus Christ: Interpretation of the Second Article of
the Creed: the Way from Kottayam to Potsdam Dietrich Ritschl ... 86
Part III: The Third Article
We Believe in the Holy Spirit, the Church and the Life of the World to Come:
an Ecumenical Explication 101
The Prophetic Spirit, the Church as a Community and Living Our Hope:
Ecumenical Aspects of the Third Article of the Creed Hans-Georg Link 1 1 5
Appendices
1. The Participants 135
2. The Authors 138
3. Faith and Order Publications on “Apostolic Faith Today” 139
iomu^3 «b izhiO «uwl bioJ wiO ai y/$ihB »W
Preface
How do ecumenical statements actually come into being? Is it not important for
their assessment to have a certain idea of the several steps within a complex
dialogue process which lead to the formulation of ecumenical reports and declar-
ations? This is why we have developed this volume, as a first attempt to glimpse
into the “workshop” of the Faith and Order Commission of the World Council of
Churches.
In this book we present the initial stages of the elaboration of a common
ecumenical explication of the Creed of Nicea-Constantinople of 381. This explic-
ation forms a central part of our study “Towards the Common Expression of the
Apostolic Faith Today”. Other publications related to this study are: The Roots of
Our Common Faith : Faith in the Scriptures and in the Early Church (ed. by
H.G. Link); Apostolic Faith Today: a Handbook for Study (ed. by H.G. Link); and
the four volumes of the series Confessing Our Faith Around the World (all published
by the WCC, Geneva).
This volume is dedicated to Lukas Vischer , director of the Faith and Order
Commission from 1966 to 1979, on the occasion of his 60th birthday. It is an
expression of our gratitude for the formative and lasting contributions which
Lukas Vischer has rendered to Faith and Order with his great theological and
conceptual gifts and his untiring energy in the service of the unity of Christ’s
church.
We are grateful to the compilers of this volume who had to struggle with an
unusual and difficult task. Our thanks are also due to our colleagues in the WCC
Publications, the Faith and Order Secretariat and the Language Service of the
WCC.
Geneva, June 1987 GOnther Gassmann
Director, Faith and Order Commission
srh <
The Ecumenical Creed
Text of 381 A.D.
We believe in one God,
the Father, the Almighty,
maker of heaven and earth,
of all that is, seen and unseen.
We believe in one Lord, Jesus Christ,
the only Son of God,
eternally begotten of the Father,
Light from Light,
true God from true God,
begotten, not made,
of one Being with the Father.
Through him all things were made.
For us men and for our salvation
he came down from heaven:
by the power of the Holy Spirit
he became incarnate from the Virgin Mary,
and was made man.
For our sake he was crucified under Pontius Pilate;
he suffered death and was buried.
On the third day he rose again
in accordance with the scriptures;
he ascended into heaven
and is seated at the right hand of the Father.
He will come again in glory to judge the living and the dead,
and his kingdom will have no end.
We believe in the Holy Spirit,
the Lord, the giver of life,
who proceeds from the Father.
With the Father and the Son he is worshipped and glorified.
He has spoken through the Prophets.
We believe in one holy catholic and apostolic Church.
We acknowledge one baptism for the forgiveness of sins.
We look for the resurrection of the dead,
and the life of the world to come. Amen.
Fullness of Faith
The Process of an Ecumenical Explication
of the Apostolic Faith
HANS-GEORG LINK
An ecumenical explication of the apostolic faith aims at a worldwide agreement
on the contents of the Christian faith. It is intended as a contribution to the
reflection of all Christians on the foundations of their common faith and as an
interpretative contemporary presentation of the rich heritage of Christianity, a
contribution in ecumenical breadth and depth. Its breadth depends on the particip-
ation in this explication of Christians — lay and expert, women and men — from
all parts of the world. Its depth is reflected in its three-step process: the creed of the
ancient church, the biblical foundation, the contemporary presentation. In this
way the fullness of the common substantive faith is to find expression in all its
breadth, length, height and depth (cf. Eph. 3:18). The way “towards a common
expression of the apostolic faith today” begins, therefore, with a comprehensive
reflection on what is central to the faith, from which fresh light is thrown on its
effects in every corner of the globe.
I. Earlier stages
At its meeting in Crete in April 1984, the Standing Commission on Faith and
Order decided to begin its detailed work on the study project “Towards the
Common Expression of the Apostolic Faith Today” by undertaking an explication
of the Christian faith as presented in the Nicene Creed.1 The question to be
answered here is “to what degree and in which form the main thrust of the three
articles of the Creed can, in the wider context of the apostolic faith, be commonly
understood and expressed by churches of different confessional identity and living
in different cultural, social, political and religious contexts”.2
In the winter of 1984/85, as a first step in this process, three international
consultations were held in different continents, with about twenty participants in
each case, to combine the explication of the contents of the Creed with regional
standpoints and contemporary challenges. Each of the consultations adopted the
same procedure: a first stage, consisting of a basic presentation and a regional
comment on each main theme, followed by detailed discussion in plenary; a second
stage in which three working groups produced initial draft interpretations which
were finalized in plenary sessions.
The first consultation was held in the Malankara Syrian Orthodox Church
Seminary in Kottayam , Kerala, South India, from 14 to 22 November 1984. It
began work on the explication of the second article of the Creed: “We believe in
Fullness of Faith 3
one Lord Jesus Christ.” Consultation members made the acquaintance of a
situation in which Christians are in a minority, in a country where the over-
whelming majority of the population is of the Hindu religion. The mystery of the
incarnation of the one God, the sufferings of Christ in relation to the misery and
hunger of millions of human beings, and the inspiring hope of resurrection against
a background of various kinds of fatalism — these were some of the aspects shown
up in a special light in the Indian context.
The second consultation, held in the La Fontaine Cultural Centre in Chantilly ,
France, from 3 to 10 January 1985, tackled the third article of the Creed: “We
believe in the Holy Spirit ... the church . . . and the life of the world to come.”
Here, the themes which emerged as of special importance for the European context
included the creative diversity of charisms, the stumbling block of divided
churches, and forebodings about the future.
The third consultation took place in the Roman Catholic Nganda Retreat
Centre in Kinshasa , Zaire, from 14 to 22 March 1985, and tackled the explication
of the first article of the Creed: “We believe in one God ...” In Kinshasa,
members of the consultation gained first-hand experience of the strength of the
young churches. In this context, there was special emphasis on joy in creation,
power structures inside and outside the churches, and the conflict between Chris-
tians and Muslims over the Trinitarian view of the one God.
These three consultations in different parts of the world undoubtedly helped to
ensure the combination of vertical and horizontal standpoints in the explication of
the apostolic faith from the very beginning. Since each of the three consultations
produced its own draft explication, a complete first version of an ecumenical
explication of the apostolic faith was already in existence at the conclusion of this
first round of meetings ( Draft 1 : Kottayam report, Chantilly report, Kinshasa
report).
This first version of the explication was harmonized, expanded and annotated in
a second series of consultations from April to August 1985. First, a small editorial
committee, composed of representatives of the consultations and staff of the
Geneva secretariat, met in Le Cenacle, a Roman Catholic conference centre in
Geneva , from 9 to 1 1 April 1985, mainly for the purpose of standardizing the
structure of the three consultation reports {Draft 2: Geneva revision). Next, the
ten-member international steering group for the study project on the apostolic
faith met in the Cret-Berard Reformed Retreat House near Lausanne from 28 May
to 1 June 1985, to revise and supplement the contents of the draft interpretation
{Draft 3: Cret-Berard draft). This version was then sent to all members of the Faith
and Order Commission in Stavanger, Norway, where it was examined in three
working groups — one for each article of the creed. These groups formulated their
agreement and criticisms in three group reports which were presented and discussed
in plenary and finally passed on to the Standing Commission for further revision.3
After a much-needed pause for breath, a third round of meetings was held from
March to July 1986. Firstly, the five executive staff members of the Faith and
Order Secretariat met in Cret-Berard from 17 to 21 March 1986 and at Le Cenacle,
Geneva on 17 and 18 April 1986, to revise the draft text of the explication in the
light of the Stavanger group reports {Draft 4\ Cret-Berard/Geneva revision). Then
the international steering group met in Berlin (West) from 9 to 12 July and
immediately afterwards, from 13 to 19 July 1986 in Potsdam (GDR), along with
the Standing Commission, to produce the latest provisional version {Draft 5:
Berlin/Potsdam Explication).
4 One God, One Lord, One Spirit
The earlier stages of the work on an ecumenical explication of the apostolic faith
may therefore be summarized as follows:
Draft 1: (a) Second Article, 14-22 November 1984, in Kottayam, S. India
(b) Third Article, 3-10 January 1985, in Chantilly, France
(c) First Article, 14-22 March 1985, in Kinshasa, Zaire
Draft 2: 9-11 April 1985, in Geneva, Switzerland
Draft 3: 28 May-1 June 1985, in Cret-Berard, Switzerland
Draft 4: 17-21 March 1986, in Cret-Berard, Switzerland
17-18 April 1986, in Geneva, Switzerland
Draft 5: 9-12 July 1986, in Berlin (West), FRG
13-19 July 1986, in Potsdam, GDR
Over 1 50 people from all parts of the world have participated in the almost two
years’ work (November 1984 to July 1986) so far devoted to an “ecumenical
explication” of the apostolic faith. In addition, local groups and study circles have
responded to the invitation of the Geneva secretariat to study questions related to
the apostolic faith.4 Needless to say, work has continued on the revision of the
draft. The Standing Commission of Faith and Order decided in August 1987 that a
preliminary version of the text would be published as a study document.
Three more international conferences are planned for 1987/1988 to deal with
certain problem areas of special importance in connection with the ecumenical
explication of the apostolic faith, e.g. atheism, Mariology, ecclesiology. Between
now and its next major conference in 1989, the Commission expects to have
advanced the study project far enough to be able to present its findings at that time
officially to the churches.
II. The role of the Nicene Creed (381)
There is no denying the fact that the Nicene Creed has an important role to play
in this ecumenical explication of the apostolic faith. This has occasionally led to the
mistaken idea, especially in Protestant circles, that the entire project is really no
more than a study of the Nicene Creed. More serious still, some of our dialogue
partners have voiced the fear that the Faith and Order Commission is retreating
into the fortresses of the fourth century in order to deal with the doctrinal
problems of the twentieth century. To counter such misinterpretations it will be
helpful to describe here as precisely as possible the role of the Nicene Creed in this
ecumenical study project.
First of all, we recall the sub-title of the present study: “An Ecumenical
Explication of the Apostolic Faith as Expressed in the Nicene-Constantinopolitan
Creed (381)”. A clear distinction is made here between the apostolic faith on the
one hand, and its expression in the Nicene Creed. The connection between them is
indicated by the word “as”. How is this “as” to be understood? Not in a normative
sense (“to the same extent that”) but factually , i.e. as that faith has found actual
historical expression in the Nicene Creed. What is meant, therefore, by the guiding
role assigned to the Nicene Creed in the ecumenical explication of the apostolic
faith is primarily the recognition of an ecumenical fact.
This basic decision in favour of the Nicene Creed has implications for both the
content and the method of the ecumenical explication of the apostolic faith.
In respect of content : the Nicene Creed serves as a guide to the key themes to be
discussed. As a fourth-century summary of the apostolic faith it suggests the list of
themes and at the same time limits it. This selective and limiting function of the
Fullness of Faith 5
Nicene Creed has already proved helpful in the ecumenical explication of the
apostolic faith, in face of the vast range of possible themes from which to make a
choice. Indeed, it has proved to be the only possible solution to this problem. This
does not automatically exclude the possibility of going beyond this canon of
themes, as happens in respect of Jesus’ proclamation of the kingdom of God, but
this will only be possible in compelling cases. When the Nicene Creed is described
in the introduction to the ecumenical explication of the apostolic faith as a “basis”,
what is meant is its role as a guide to the contents of this explication.
In respect of method', here the Creed of 381 provides the starting point for
interpretation. It is in this sense that it is described in the introduction as a
“methodological tool”. Its pithy and familiar clauses facilitate access ( met-hodos )
to the apostolic faith. Starting from the text of the Nicene Creed is the first of three
systematic steps; it is followed by the second, more detailed in most cases, i.e.
indication of the biblical foundation; these first two steps lead on to the third, the
explication for today, which is decisive both in content and comprehensiveness.
At the same time, this definition of the role of the Nicene Creed for the content
and method of the ecumenical interpretation of the apostolic faith also implies
limitations. The Nicene Creed is not the only touchstone nor is it an absolute
criterion for the content of the apostolic faith. This is clear from the fact that its
substantive assertions are in every case examined in the light of the witness of the
biblical documents and focused as sharply as possible on the questions of our time.
In this ecumenical explication, the Creed of 381 has its proper role and function as
a relative, time-conditioned and context-conditioned regula fidei (rule of faith).
Even in respect of this limited role, it may well be asked why such a key function
should be assigned to the Nicene Creed in particular and not for instance to the
Apostles’ Creed or to some modern creed or confession? Various reasons have
been decisive here. Firstly, the Nicene Creed is the oldest of the three ancient
church creeds; it stands closest to the original sources. Secondly, it represents an
exemplary summary of the basic contents of the apostolic faith, of a sort which we
do not even find in the New Testament itself. Thirdly, it is a Creed which was
adopted by the Second Ecumenical Council — the faith of the 150 fathers — and it
carries the authority of an ecumenical council recognized by almost all the
churches. Fourthly, this Creed has proved its value as a rule of faith for millions of
Christians throughout the centuries who have struggled and suffered for it and
died with its words on their lips. Fifthly and finally, the Nicene Creed is recognized
by all the main Christian traditions and continues even today to be by far the most
widely used creed among Christians.
In appealing to the Nicene Creed as a guide to contents and as a methodological
starting point, this ecumenical explication of the apostolic faith confronts at least
the Reformation and post- Reformation churches with the task of looking beyond
the Reformation of the sixteenth century and reflecting more seriously and
intensively on the ancient church heritage common to all Christians. At the same
time, the Western church’s Apostles’ Creed, though less widely used, is also taken
into account in the explication in the hope that it may also find a home in the
Eastern church tradition. In the last analysis, however, both ancient church creeds
perform their limited function only in connection with the variety of biblical
testimonies and contemporary questionings. In this ecumenical explication of the
apostolic faith, the ancient church creeds, the biblical foundations and the contem-
porary interpretations are not to be treated as rivals competing with one another
but on the contrary must together find a common voice.
6 One God, One Lord, One Spirit
If the Nicene Creed were to find a firm place in the eucharistic celebrations of the
western church and the Apostles’ Creed a firm place in the baptismal services of
the eastern church, that would be a wonderful fruit of ecumenical reflection on the
common heritage from the ancient church.
III. Features of this ecumenical explication of the apostolic faith
Ecumenical texts are developing increasingly into a distinctive literary genre.
Occasion, place, time, author, theme, conditions — in a word, the whole context in
and out of which they emerge — play in them a disproportionately important role.
This has been the case since the modern ecumenical movement started at the
beginning of this century. To begin with there were reports in which participants in
ecumenical conferences tried to capture their experiences, discoveries and ques-
tions. Then came joint statements on theological, ecclesiological and political
themes. In 1948 a basis was formulated for the World Council of Churches for the
first time; in 1961 this was expanded to its present form. In Lima in 1982 a
comergence statement first saw the light of ecumenical day. Now we are working
on an ecumenical explication of the apostolic faith.
What confronts us in all these ecumenical texts is a new form of theological
literature in which the teething troubles of its early years are frequently only too
obvious. What they lack most is the maturity of conciliar texts and they are often
contemporary snapshots rather than long-term projections pointing to the future.
They are, on the one hand, recognizably the products of a young movement. Fully
to understand the language and intentions of its written statements, one has to be a
participant in this movement. On the other hand, from the 1948/1961 Basis via the
convergence statement of 1982 down to the present explication, there is an
unmistakable movement in the direction of more far-reaching statements with
ecumenical validity.
It has become plain from the reception process of the convergence statements on
baptism, eucharist and ministry how difficult many people find it to grasp the
character of this new ecumenical genre, especially if, as in most cases, they have not
been involved in its production. In order to facilitate understanding for the
“ecumenical explication of the apostolic faith”, let me list a few of its characteristic
features.
On the whole, the following five guiding principles as they are listed in the
introduction have proved to be useful in the work of interpreting the apostolic
faith ecumenically:
1. The explication deals with essential aspects of the faith following the basic
affirmations of the ancient creeds. This will leave room for more detailed
interpretation, application and implementation according to the respective
Christian traditions and cultural contexts.
2. The explication seeks to discover and formulate common insights which can be
understood and accepted by Christians from different traditions.
3. The explication does not pretend to solve all theological differences. It rather
seeks to interpret the apostolic faith as the basic foundation of Christian
thinking and life of our present time. This includes facing contemporary
challenges to the Christian faith.
4. The explication tries to meet the requirements of today by showing as clearly as
possible the link between doctrinal affirmations and ethical problems.
5. The explication attempts to make necessary “ clarifications ” of the apostolic
faith in critical response to certain developments of our time.
Fullness of Faith 1
In detail, the following eight features call for emphasis:
1. The ecumenical explication of the apostolic faith takes place in a process
which requires years and perhaps even decades. The version presented here is only
its first fruits and in no sense its final product. The purpose of publishing it is to
involve as early as possible as many as possible of those who are interested in this
process of comprehensive reflection on common foundations of faith. As expli-
cation, this ecumenical process is in principle unending even if one day it will in fact
provisionally end. It is the ambition of this ecumenical explication of the apostolic
faith to persuade as many participants as possible to accompany it on the way to
the re-formation of Christian faith and life, and it is, as a matter of principle, open
to new interpretative standpoints.
2. This ecumenical explication is a common effort in which far more than a
hundred theologians and laity inside and outside the Faith and Order Commission
have already shared. Contributions have been made to this explication from all the
main Christian traditions, from the non-Chalcedonian churches to the so-called
non-credal churches, and of course, including the Roman Catholic tradition.
Points of view representative of all regions of the earth have been expressed and
digested. To this extent it is an ecumenically representative interpretation. The
weight it carries is not derived, however, from any formal authority of any kind but
solely from the wisdom it contains and the conviction it carries in its own right, as
is the case with other ecumenical documents.5
3. The participation of many confessional and regional representatives is re-
flected in a multiplicity of views. But what we have here is no pallid lowest common
denominator. Quite the contrary. An effort has been made to achieve the highest
possible degree of agreed knowledge. The only effect of the limiting function of an
explication for which joint responsibility is assumed is that nothing has been
formulated which could not be accepted by a tradition or region. Apart from that,
the principle followed by the explication has been to expound the fullness of
ecumenical knowledge of the faith.
4. Each of the main Christian traditions has contributed its distinctive emphasis
to the explication: the Orthodox tradition, the guideline of the Nicene Creed; the
Roman Catholic tradition, clarifications from doctrinal developments in the
ancient church and subsequently; the Protestant churches, the basic biblical
foundations. Our common task of interpreting the apostolic faith for our times
received the benefit of all three emphases. To a certain extent, the structure of the
explication — creed, Bible, today — takes these different emphases into account.
The explication has thereby gained generally in tension and depth.
5. In any ecumenical explication it is natural for the different participants to
emphasize what unites them. The explication then helps people to recognize that, in
respect of the substance of the Christian faith, what the churches have in common
outweighs what divides them. In an explication in which many persons cooperate
in this way, what unites them has necessarily to be formulated at a certain basic
level. But this is something altogether different from a pallid generalization which
exhausts itself in empty turns of phrase. Characteristic of the basic linguistic form
is a spaciousness in which different concrete adaptations have their place. This
ecumenical explication of the apostolic faith allows “room for more detailed inter-
pretation, application and implementation according to the respective Christian
traditions and cultural contexts”, as the first of the five guiding principles requires.
6. This raises the question of the relationship of fundamental doctrinal state-
ments to concrete ethical applications. The fourth of the guiding principles insists
8 One God, One Lord, One Spirit
that the connection between them be shown “as clearly as possible”. This becomes
all the more urgent since ethical questions today play an incomparably more
important role in individual, social, political and economic matters than ever
before but also because differences on ethical questions sometimes divide the
churches more than their doctrinal differences. Much work is still needed on the
explication before it really does justice to the many challenges of the present time.
But fundamental limits to its actual ethical applications are also set by different
church and regional traditions. These limits may only be overcome, indeed, if the
ethical approaches indicated here are developed independently in the different
regions and confessions.
7. This is not a theological convergence document like that on baptism, euchar-
ist and ministry. Its primary purpose is not so much to settle individual points of
conflict between the churches as to present the apostolic faith “in all its rich
diversity” as a common ecumenical basis in contemporary terms. In a certain sense,
it contradicts the very nature of an explication to make any endorsement of its
explanations obligatory. The purpose of the explanations, on the contrary, is to
engender pleasure at the ecumenical concern for the contents and consequences of
the apostolic faith and to point the way to an ecumenical reformation in head and
members. To regard them as obligatory doctrinal statements would be to mis-
understand them completely.
8. It could be helpful here to remember that this is only the first step in the
project “towards the common expression of the apostolic faith today”. With a
future common confession of the apostolic faith in prospect, there is a great deal to
be said for summarizing later the basic biblical, historical and contemporary
approaches of this explication in short concluding paragraphs. These could form
the substance of a future convergence text on the apostolic faith aiming at
universal agreement.
IV. Suggestions for future emphases
From what has already been said, it is clear that the ecumenical explication of
the apostolic faith is only in its initial stages and has certainly not yet found final
shape either in form or content. As the Faith and Order Commission secretary
entrusted with responsibility for the advancement of the study project on the
apostolic faith from 1980 to 1986, 1 would like now to indicate five aspects to which
sufficient attention has not yet been given in the work to date. The purpose of these
reflections, of course, is to help to ensure an even more comprehensive and relevant
expression of the apostolic faith.6
1. Our approach to the ecumenical interpretation of the apostolic faith must be
broad enough and deep enough to embrace also the Old Testament and Jewish
tradition of faith, without which as a foundation no agreement on the Christian
faith can be complete. Thus already in Rome in 1983 it was affirmed: “We are
convinced that the relation of the Church and Jewish people is an essential aspect
of the apostolic faith, and that any convergence document must deal adequately
with this relation.”7 Encouraging exegetical and systematic theological efforts to
include this dimension have already been made in the work on the ecumenical
explication so far. To give due weight to our Old Testament and Jewish heritage
seems to me of special importance at three points:
a) In emphasizing the one God, the one Lord, the one church, the Nicene Creed
adopts the fundamental Old Testament confession of the uniqueness of the God of
Israel. After a long period in Christian theology in which attention has concen-
Fullness of Faith 9
trated mainly on the different persons of the Trinity — almost to the point of
tritheism — it is high time today to put the emphasis, as the Old Testament does,
on the oneness of God and on the implications of this for the people of God. In
Rome in 1983, Michael Wyschogrod, the Jewish theologian from New York, made
this statement: “ . . . Christian literature on the triune nature of God is far larger
than that on his oneness. Can it be that the time has come to investigate more
deeply the oneness as well as the threeness of God in Christian teaching? It cannot
be expected that the oneness thus developed will be uninfluenced by the threeness
but perhaps a better balance between the two doctrines will be found.”8
b) The incarnation of the Son of God as confessed by the Nicene Creed
embraces not only his general humanity but also has its full force in the Jewish
context (family, people, geography and tradition) in which Jesus of Nazareth lived
and died. God’s incarnation in the Jew Jesus is “a light for revelation to the gentiles
and for glory to thy people Israel” (Luke 2:32). In confessing our faith in the divine
incarnation, therefore, we give thanks to God the Father not just for the incarn-
ation of his Son as a human being in general but also for the glory of the “peculiar
people” from which the light has gone forth to lighten the Gentiles.
c) Finally, confession of faith in the Holy Spirit “who has spoken through the
prophets” has implications for the relationship between the church and Israel. Karl
Barth described this always difficult relationship as “the one really vital ecumenical
question”.9 The relationship between the Catholic Church and the Jewish people
having been put on a new footing by the Declaration Nostra Aetate at the Second
Vatican Council10 and a clear sign having been given by Pope John Paul II with his
recent visit to a synagogue in Rome, the time has also come for the member
churches of the World Council of Churches to examine their relationship to people
of the Jewish faith and to put this relationship on a solid theological basis: the one
people of God of both Jews and Gentiles.
2. So far the ecumenical explication of the apostolic faith has taken in all parts
of the Creed in roughly equal measure. In future, closer attention is to be paid to
the themes which divide the churches. For the real ecumenical task of the Faith and
Order Commission is to deal with the theological difficulties which have helped to
divide the churches in the past. In the light of the fundamentals summarized in the
Nicene Creed, there are, it seems to me, three such themes which still divide
the churches: the role of the Virgin Mary, the problem of the filioque, and the
catholicity of the church.
a) In reaction against a usually exaggerated Mariology and exaggerated forms
of Marian piety in Roman Catholicism, most of the Protestant churches have gone
to the opposite extreme of not venturing to say anything about Mary at all. It
cannot be ignored, however, that Miriam has her firm place in the Old Testament
just as Mary has hers in the New Testament and in the ancient church creeds. It is
time for all Christians to discover and define this place. Feminist liberation in Latin
America and in Europe has for some time now been on the track of the hidden
revolutionary encouragements in the biblical portrait of Mary to put an end to a
patriarchalism with Christian trimmings and a tyranny camouflaged as religion. It
is high time for Protestantism to rediscover Mary.
b) The filioque conflict between the Eastern church and the Western church was
examined in detail by the Faith and Order Commission in 1978/79 and the
Commission approved the Klingenthal memorandum on this question11, though
this has so far found no echo worth speaking of in the churches. In the context of
the interpretation of the third article of the Creed, we need, I believe, to differen-
10 One God, One Lord, One Spirit
tiate much more clearly between the Christological legitimacy (I do not say neces-
sity) and canonical illegitimacy of the addition “and from the Son” to the proces-
sion of the Spirit from the Father. This would allow the churches of the West, on
the one hand, to emphasize the ultimate and complete resting of the Spirit on the
Son, yet at the same time, on the other hand, to return to the original wording of
the Creed. Without such an official step towards reconciliation with the Eastern
church tradition, the Orthodox churches can hardly be expected to welcome the
Western Apostles’ Creed into their church tradition and still less to accept new
ecumenical statements of faith.
c) What is most urgently needed today is , it seems to me, the development of an
ecumenical ecclesiology which allows room for the different church traditions
which have developed over the centuries. The main offence in church history has
not been the differences between the churches as such but their absolutization
accompanied by the condemnation of other churches. The days are over, thank
God, when one church claimed to be exclusively the one true and catholic church.
What we need today is an ecumenical explication of the marks of the church which
links unity not with uniformity, but with conciliar fellowship, and catholicity not
with “Romanity” but with the rich diversity of the body of Christ. Equally
important, on the other hand, is the overcoming of sectarian particularism and
Protestant provincialism, if there is to be any ecumenical renewal of the confession
of faith in the one, holy, catholic and apostolic church.
3. One of the specific tasks assumed by this ecumenical explication of the
apostolic faith was to examine and, as far as possible, respond to “ contemporary
challenges to the Christian faith” (cf. the third of the five guiding principles). The
individual chapters also begin by listing in greater or less detail the relevant issues.
But the “explication for today” in each case still seems to me to have gone in most
respects too far in the direction of consonance and apologetics. To give one
example: when it comes to the confession of faith in the One Creator of heaven and
earth and its interpretation for today, it is not just our understanding of heaven
and earth but also our practical dealings with them which are challenged. One of
the working groups in Stavanger 1985 launched on an examination of “the
integrity of creation in light of the apostolic faith”.12 In doing so, it at least
indicated the direction to be taken — and taken substantially further than so far —
for progress to be made today in the ecumenical exegesis of the apostolic faith. The
burning issues of our day must, in fact, be related to the essential content of the
Christian faith and the ethical consequences of the fundamental credal clauses must
be drawn. Great strides forward would be made in this ecumenical interpretation if
it could for instance also manage to relate confession of the lordship of the Risen
Christ or of the future of the kingdom of God to the experiences of daily life.
4. Since 1983, we have made various attempts to involve local and regional
groups in the work, though only with modest success so far. Down to the plenary
meeting in Stavanger, only 15 responses from groups had been received, mostly
from Europe, none from Africa, Asia or Latin America. This raises the question
how much real interest is taken in this theme and the study of it to date and how far
does it meet a felt-need in the different parts of the world. For undoubtedly the
comprehensive and fundamental character of this enterprise also sets limits to it.
Would it help if the work of the Commission at world level were to be
supplemented by regional statements on doctrinal questions ?13 For some years now
we have been collecting such statements and can clearly recognize their contempor-
ary contextual relevance, at least at certain flashpoints such as Central America,
Fullness of Faith 1 1
South Africa or South Korea. In my view, it would be a real enrichment of the
present work on basic questions of faith at the international level if the national
Christian councils and regional church conferences (such as the Conference of
European Churches) were to adopt the theme and produce appropriate statements,
perhaps under the general title of “Challenges and Opportunities for Confessing
the Apostolic Faith in Our Part of the World”.
5. The substantial work on the study of the apostolic faith has so far concen-
trated almost exclusively on its central part, the explication, and, for good reasons,
this will continue to be so for the foreseeable future. Since a possible bridge to a
common credal confession was envisaged in the conclusion of the previous section
(III, 8), I would like now, in bringing this present section to a close, to raise the
question of the connection with the common recognition of the apostolic faith.
Since Lausanne 1927 a number of attempts have been made to establish a written
account of what all Christians are already able to agree in accepting. The first of
these attempts stated: “Notwithstanding the differences in doctrine among us, we
are united in a common Christian faith which is proclaimed in the holy scriptures
and is witnessed to and safeguarded in the ecumenical creed commonly called the
Nicene, and in the Apostles’ Creed, which faith is continuously confirmed in the
spiritual experience of the church of Christ.”14 Similar and even fuller statements
could be cited from the world conferences on Faith and Order in Edinburgh 1937,
Lund 1952, and Montreal 1963. 15 The problem is that, up to now, none of these
declarations acknowledging our common Christian heritage has been officially
accepted by any Assembly of the World Council of Churches. Nor have any of the
more recent declarations, such, as “A Common Account of Hope” (1978), “The
Filioque Clause in Ecumenical Perspective” (1979), or “Baptism, Eucharist and
Ministry” (1982).
When we trace the distant beginnings of joint declarations as developed by the
Faith and Order Commission, we come across the “Lambeth Quadrilateral” which
was formulated almost a century ago, in 1888, as the basis of the Anglican
Communion. The question I ask is whether the time has not now arrived, one
century later, for an ecumenical quadrilateral , possibly along the following lines:
We, the official representatives of our churches, meeting together at this ecumenical
event, recognize, despite the doctrinal differences which still remain between us, our
unity in the one apostolic faith
— as witnessed to in the scriptures of the Old and New Testaments;
— as summarized in the ancient church creeds, the Nicene-Constantinopolitan Creed
of 381 and the Apostles’ Creed;
— as celebrated in the church’s liturgy, i.e. in the eucharist; and
— as interpreted by the ecumenical councils of the church.
If the member churches of the World Council were officially to adopt such a
statement at one of the forthcoming Assemblies, this would undoubtedly provide a
solid basis for surmounting the doctrinal differences that still remain.16 We should
not underestimate the importance of such an explicit official recognition of our
common Christian heritage — especially for relationships with the Orthodox and
Roman Catholic traditions. Of course, a formal recognition of this kind cannot
and should not be regarded as a substitute for the reappropriation of the content; it
can nevertheless serve as a platform solid enough to bear the weight of a
reinterpretation and contemporary confession of our common Christian faith.
12 One God, One Lord, One Spirit
V. The contents of the book
We publish in this book the first drafts of an ecumenical explication of the
apostolic faith as produced at the Kottayam, Chantilly and Kinshasa consult-
ations. Differences in respect of the membership and location of these consult-
ations are reflected in the length, exegetical methods and style of these drafts. To a
greater extent than later revisions, they reveal the contexts and questions which lay
behind the initial approach to the ecumenical interpretation of the apostolic faith.
To provide readers with some insight into this initial ecumenical situation and
starting point, and to show them the course the explication has since taken, three
participants have provided profiles of the drafting process in terms of selected
themes. These profiles are to be taken as reports of ecumenical work-in-progress
and intentionally underline the character of this publication as a workbook. Their
function is to act as a guide to help the reader to follow, at least to some extent, the
vicissitudes of the ecumenical explication in its different stages down to the form it
has now reached. This could only be done by selected examples, given the wealth of
the themes developed and the limited space available in this book.
We publish these first drafts of an ecumenical explication of the apostolic faith in
the hope that this theme will find as wide an audience as have the convergence
documents on baptism, eucharist and ministry. We invite as many groups as
possible, working groups, pastors’ conferences, and such like associations, to
examine receptively, critically and creatively the themes touched on here. The
Geneva Faith and Order secretariat invites both positive and negative comments,
for consideration in the subsequent work of explication. We wish all readers of this
book much joy in the rich heritage of our common apostolic faith.
NOTES
1. The title “Nicene Creed” is used for simplicity’s sake; the reference is always to the text
of the Nicene-Constantinopolitan Creed of 381.
2. Minutes of the Meeting of the Standing Commission of Faith and Order, Crete 1984,
Faith and Order Paper No. 121 , Geneva, WCC, 1984, p.15.
3. Cf. my report “We believe in Father, Son and Holy Spirit”, the Stavanger discussion on
the proposed ecumenical explication of the apostolic faith today, in T.F. Best ed.,
“Faith and Renewal: Reports and Documents of the Commission on Faith and Order,
Stavanger 1985”, Faith and Order Paper No. 131, Geneva, WCC, 1986, pp.l27ff.
4. On this cf. the “Proposals and Questions for Study Groups on Apostolic Faith Today”,
in “Apostolic Faith Today: a Handbook for Study”, H.-G. Link ed.. Faith and Order
Paper No. 124, Geneva, WCC, 1985, pp.278-280.
5. Cf. the corresponding formulation of the so-called “Toronto Statement”, “The Church,
the Churches and the World Council of Churches” (1950), in L. Vischer ed., A
Documentary History of the Faith and Order Movement 1927-1963, St Louis, Missouri,
1963, pp.l67ff.
6. A written version of these reflections was in the hands of the members of the Standing
Commission on 19 July 1986 in Potsdam: Theological Considerations on the Develop-
ment of the Apostolic Faith Study.
7. “The Roots of Our Common Faith: Faith in the Scriptures and in the Early Church”,
H.-G. Link ed., Faith and Order Paper No. 119, Geneva, WCC, 1984, p.18.
8. Op. cit., p.31.
9. In C.A. Rijk, “Das gemeinsame Band. Die Bedeutung der christlich-judischen Bezie-
hung fur die Einheit der Kirche” (The Common Bond: the Significance of the
Christian-Jewish Relationship for the Unity of Church), in Bibel und Kirche, 1974, p.44.
Fullness of Faith 13
10. In Austin P. Flannery ed., Documents of Vatican II, pp. 738-742.
11. “The Filioque Clause in Ecumenical Perspective”, in “Spirit of God, Spirit of Christ:
Ecumenical Reflections on the Filioque Controversy”, L. Vischer ed., Faith and Order
Paper No. 103 , Geneva, WCC, 1981, pp.3-18. “Apostolic Faith Today”, op. cit.,
pp. 23 1-244.
12. In “Faith and Renewal”, op. cit ., pp.l46ff.
13. Cf. the series “Confessing Our Faith Around the World”, I-IV, Faith and Order Papers
104, 120, 123, 126, 1980-1985.
14. “The Church’s Common Confession of Faith”, report of Section IV of the Lausanne
conference 1927, in L. Vischer ed., A Documentary History of the Faith and Order
Movement , op. cit., p.33. “Apostolic Faith Today”, op. cit., p.69.
15. “Apostolic Faith Today”, op. cit., under the heading of the several conferences.
16. It would be a remarkable ecumenical gesture if, during its commemoration of the
centenary of the Lambeth Quadrilateral in 1988, the assembled bishops of the Anglican
Communion were to take the initiative in proposing such a step.
PART I
The First Article
We Believe in One God
An Ecumenical Explication
Report of a Faith and Order Consultation held at Kinshasa,
Zaire, 14-22 March 1985
A. The one God
I. The theme
II. The Creed
III. The biblical witness
IV. Today
B. The Father Almighty
I. The theme
a) God the Father
II. The Creed
III. The biblical witness
IV. Today
b) The Almighty
II. The Creed
III. The biblical witness
IV. Today
c) Conclusion: the Father Almighty
C. The Creator and his creation
I. The theme
II. The Creed
III. The biblical witness
IV. Today
a) The Triune God as the Creator
b) The Creator acts — in redemption and revelation
c) God’s good creation — and evil
18 One God, One Lord, One Spirit
d) Humanity in creation
e) Consequences
1) Humanity’s mandate over nature and the destruction of our
environment
2) Human responsibility in a world sanctified by the Triune God
A. THE ONE GOD
I. The THEME
1. In the world, “there are many ‘gods’ and many ‘lords’” (1 Cor. 8:5).
Phenomenologically speaking, a god is an object of worship, prayer, and trust; it is
what constitutes for an individual or a group their ultimate value. At its best,
religion is the serious and sincere search for the good and for fullness of life.
Human sinfulness, however, introduces distortions that lead to idolatry, this being
finally the magnification of self (Rom. 1 : 19fT.; Phil. 3:19).
“Where your heart is, there is your god” (Luther, Large Catechism). In this
sense, there are no atheists. On the other hand, there are atheists in the sense of
those who consider that belief in God , far from being the way of life and salvation,
is rather a threat to the freedom and dignity of humankind; belief in God would
rather be an illusion springing from psychological, sociological or economic
grounds. In the early centuries, Christians were accused of atheism because they
abandoned the pagan gods. Contemporary atheism may today be challenging
believers to purify their notion of God.
In face of the problems of existence in our world, some people are unable to find
any transcendent or ultimate reference in life. Some of these place their hope for
betterment in humankind itself. Others have abandoned the quest in a nihilistic
way.
2. Many peoples and several religions profess faith in a single, universal god, the
creator, sustainer and goal of everything else that is. That transcendent god gives
meaning and worth to created reality. The crucial question concerns the identity of
the one God. Christians believe that “the one true God”, who made himself known
to Israel, has revealed himself supremely in “the one whom he has sent”, namely
Jesus Christ (John 17:3); that, in Christ, God has reconciled the world to himself
(2 Cor. 5:19); and that, by his Holy Spirit, God is bringing new and eternal life to
all who through Christ put their trust in him.
3. For many religious people outside the Christian community, the notion of the
Triune God has been a stumbling-block. Either it threatened monotheism as they
conceived it; or, in the other direction, it excluded their own more multiple
perceptions of the divine. Even within the church, many people today consider that
the Christian doctrine of the Triune God stands in need of fresh interpretation and
terminological revision. It may be that the work of clarifying the Christian doctrine
of God both for those outside the church and for those within will best proceed
hand in hand.
II. The Creed
4. The Nicene Creed confesses belief in one God, one Lord, one church, one
baptism. The foundation for all authentic ecclesial and human unity is the one
God: “There is one body and one Spirit, just as you were called to the one hope
We Believe in One God 19
that belongs to your call, one Lord, one faith, one baptism, one God and Father of
us all, who is above all and through all and in all” (Eph. 4:4-6).
5. From their Jewish heritage Christians have known since the start that “there
is no God but one” (1 Cor. 8:4). The church of the second century affirmed against
Marcion the unity of the God who creates and redeems. It took time before the
church gave a fully reasoned account of the relation between the “one God, the
Father, from whom are all things and for whom we exist” and the “one Lord, Jesus
Christ, through whom are all things and through whom we exist” (1 Cor. 8:6). The
determinative moment came with the Arian controversy. While Arius held that the
axiomatic unity of God could be maintained only at the expense of Christ, the
Nicenes believed that the Christ who was worshipped as Lord, and in whom
salvation was given, belonged essentially to the Godhead. The Council of Nicea
(325) affirmed the Son to be homoousios to Patri, understood as ek tes ousias tou
Patros. After a subsequent and similar controversy, the Council of Constantinople
(381) declared also the lordship of the Holy Spirit, “who proceeds from the Father
and who with the Father and the Son together is worshipped and glorified”. In all
this, the church had no sense of destroying the unity of God; rather the one God,
on the basis of his redemptive activity in history, was understood as Triune.
Baptism continued to take place in the single name of Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.
6. In the development of Trinitarian theology, a tension has existed between
those who found the unity of God upon the divine essence which would, as it were,
underlie all three persons, and those who see in the Father the personal “source of
deity”. The latter view would appear to be closer to the original Nicene formu-
lation (although ek tes ousias tou Patros was not taken up into the creed with which
we are dogmatically and liturgically familiar), and it is particularly characteristic of
the Cappadocian fathers and the Eastern churches. The Western churches, fol-
lowing Augustine, tend in the former direction. Recent thinking on the koinonia of
the Godhead may, as we shall see, suggest a reconciliation between these views,
which belong in any case more to speculative theology than to the fundamental
confession of the faith. In both East and West, doxological language confesses
both the unity of God and the distinction of persons with equal insistance; and it is
in worship that the personal character of the Triune God is most apparent.
7. There is no easy access to the understanding of the credal formulas. Although
the word homoousios itself was subject to a multiplicity of possible interpretations,
the general concern of the early church was to guarantee the oneness of God and to
secure, therefore, the unity of the three divine Persons. Nicene theology thus
stressed at the same time the individuality of each of the three hypostases of the one
God who reveals himself throughout the history of salvation, and the dimension of
communion {koinonia) in the one divine being. Today care needs to be taken with
such words as “substance” (which now often suggests material, subject to instru-
mental measurement), “essence” (which may recall a discredited metaphysic) or
“person” (which may evoke an individual subject, an atomistic centre of con-
sciousness). It is also necessary to show how the relation between 3 and 1 is not
merely arithmetical. It remains an urgent task for the church to develop together a
contemporary terminology explicating for today the precise meaning of the
formulas of antiquity.
III. The biblical witness
8. The Councils of Nicea and Constantinople sought to ground their teaching in
the scriptures. Biblically, the true God is “the living God”. Genesis begins with the
20 One God, One Lord, One Spirit
first act of God ad extra in the creation of the world, which remains the object of
his interest and affection, the “theatre of his glory” (Calvin). Israel had learnt to
know this creator God in his redemptive history with them. In his dealings with his
elect people Israel, God is known as YHWH, the Lord. It is the Lord who brought
Israel out of Egpyt, and on that account he alone is entitled to the people’s
worship; all idols are therefore to be rejected: “I am the Lord your God, who
brought you out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of bondage. You shall have
no other gods before me. You shall not make for yourself a graven image, or any
likeness of anything that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that
is in the water under the earth; you shall not bow down to them or serve them; for I
the Lord your God am a jealous God” (Ex. 20:2-5a).
In the promised land, a centuries-long struggle was needed before Israel, always
threatened by apostasy, won its way, at least as a remnant, to accept the exclusive
claims of the Lord over the gods of the land. The prophetic witness was especially
important in this regard. The Deuteronomist declares the faith of Israel: “Hear, O
Israel, the Lord is our God, the Lord alone. You shall love the Lord your God with
all your heart, all your soul, and all your might” (Deut. 6:4f.). The greatest clarity
concerning the uniqueness of the Lord and the all-encompassing extent of his
sovereignty was — miraculously — attained at the time of most severe testing: it is
in Second Isaiah, prophet of the Babylonian exile, that Yahweh is acclaimed as
universal creator and as redeemer of Israel: “There is no other god besides me; a
righteous God and Saviour; there is none besides me. Turn to me, and be saved, all
the ends of the earth; for I am God, and there is no other’.’ (Isa. 45:21-22).
9. Jesus affirmed the faith of Israel concerning the one God. He dismissed Satan
by citing the scripture: “You shall worship the Lord your God, and him only shall
you serve” (Matt. 4:10; cf. Deut. 6:13). He endorsed the “Hear, O Israel” as the first
and great commandment and the way to eternal life (Mark 12:29; Matt. 22:37;
Luke 10:27). The God of Israel called Jesus his Son (Luke 1 :32; 3:22 = Matt. 4: 17).
Jesus addresses this God as “Father”, using the intimate word “Abba” (Mark
14:36), etc. Jesus is the Father’s own, beloved, the only Son (John 1:18; 3:16; Rom.
8:32; Col. 1:13). Whoever has seen the Son has seen the Father (John 14:9), for the
Father and the Son are “one” (John 10:30). While remaining distinct, the Father
and the Son “dwell” in each other (John 17:21). At the prayer of the exalted Christ,
the Father sends the Holy Spirit into the world, to be for believers “the other
Paradise”, the Spirit who “makes alive” and guides into all the truth.
IV. Today
10. The one God reveals himself as a communion of life and love. The progress-
ive revelation of the Trinity in the New Testament coincides with God’s self-
communication to humanity. The Father makes a radical gift of himself through
the incarnation of his eternal Son, who shares the human condition even to the
point of death, in order to offer to humanity the resurrection and eternal life (John
3:16). The life of the incarnate Son, as the total gift of self to God and to his fellow
human beings, reveals that in God himself, life is mutual self-giving and com-
munion. All that is summed up in the declaration “God is love” (1 John 4:8). The
cross of Christ is a revelation in history of the kenotic love of God which gives itself
in order that life may be manifested as fullness of communion. The cross cannot be
understood apart from the Trinity, nor the Trinity apart from the cross. Without
the God who is love, the cross is both scandal and foolishness, just as the doctrine
of the Trinity, without the cross, remains intellectual acrobatics, if not an absurd-
We Believe in One God 21
ity. As the emblem of the incarnation, death and resurrection of the Son of God
become man, the cross is the affirmation of a love which is stronger than sin and
death. This love which reveals itself in the history of salvation is the God who is
both one and Triune. If God reveals and communicates himself as love, it is
because he first of all is in himself love and koinonia.
The fullness of the biblical revelation consists precisely in the fact that the one
God is an eternal communion of life. The eternal source of that living communion
is God the Father, who eternally begets the only Son (John 1:1, 18) and eternally
breathes out the Holy Spirit (John 15:26). This does not mean that the one God is
divided, but rather that life in God is the free gift of self in communion. The eternal
communion of life reveals itself ad extra as the Creator of the world (Gen. 1:1, 2:4;
Ps. 33:6; John 1 : 1-3), as the world’s Redeemer, and its Sanctifier, its beginning and
its end. The work of each Person of the Trinity implies the presence and cooper-
ation of all three.
That the Creator of the world and of humankind is this eternal communion of
life and love is what gives the world a meaning and a purpose. Created in the image
of this eternal communion of life and love, humankind has as its final end the
vocation to become ever more truly the image of the Trinitarian communion,
reflecting and witnessing to the active presence of the Trinitarian love in the world.
1 1. The Triune God is the source and model of the church’s life. According to
John 17:21, the mutual indwelling of Father and Son ( perichoresis ) is the source,
model and locus for the unity of the disciples of Jesus: “that they may all be one,
even as thou, Father, art in me, and I in thee, that they may also be in us ...” To
a monadic God would correspond a monolithic unity of the creatures. Christian
unity is rather that of a free fellowship in love, the “communion of the Holy Spirit”
(2 Cor. 13:13); its concreteness and visibility rests upon the word made flesh, into
whose body believers are integrated as members. It is the one God, Lord and Spirit
who is the source of all the varied gifts, which are to be harmoniously directed
towards the common good (1 Cor. 12:4-7).
The unity of the Trinity, both as the perfect unity of the distinct Persons and as
the mutual indwelling of the Persons, is revealed in scripture as the only unity that
the church is to manifest in its life “in order that the world may believe” (John
17:21). This unity transcends all unity of a purely logical or arithmetical kind: it is
a unity of koinonia. Both the unity and the difference of the divine Persons are of
equal value in the constitution and manifestation of koinonia. Trinitarian unity,
therefore, is the negation of all subordinationism and the refusal of all isolation-
ism, separation or indifference towards others. Each divine Person lives the life of
the others, and each divine Person lives not only with the others (co-existence) but
also for the others (pro-existence). Local churches united in the image of the
Trinitarian koinonia will each live the life of the others, and all will live the life of
each, while yet keeping their specific gifts. The same faith and spiritual life is the
content of each, and of all together. This Trinitarian koinonia ensures both unity
and the liberty of each and of all, in such a way that the unity never becomes
subordination or totalitarianism, and the liberty never becomes isolation or selfish
individualism. Thus the life of the church and the churches will bear witness among
humanity to the mystery of the God who is love.
The pattern of “conciliar fellowship” to which the churches are called today
should be a reflection of this Trinitarian life. It should allow a more transparent
manifestation of the communion of life and love that Christians have with God the
Trinity, amid a world marked by sin, divisions, injustice, and lack of communion.
22 One God, One Lord, One Spirit
That implies more fraternity and solidarity in and among the Christian communi-
ties, more collegiality at the structural level, more collaboration in diakonia.
12. Christian faith in the one God who reveals himself as a supreme communion
of life and love has profound significance not only for the life of the church but also
for the church’s engagement in the service of the world.
Faith in the one God , Creator, Saviour and Judge of the world, should always
inspire refusal of every human effort to replace the true god by false gods created in
the image of absolutized selfish passions (the desire to possess, to dominate, to
destroy, to deceive). At the same time, faith in the one God should never serve as
the pretext for actions contrary to the will of God as this is expressed in the
commandments of love towards the neighbour; invocation of the one God can
never sanction injustice or oppression.
Faith in the one God who is supreme communion of life and love should inspire
Christians to grasp, encourage and sustain all efforts towards justice, peace and
respect for persons or peoples marginalized, oppressed, threatened by suffering, sin
and death, or any form of life that is not authentic communion.
If the world is regarded in the light of faith in the Trinity, then every aspiration
towards justice, peace, the sharing of resources, the democratic distribution of
power, the freedom of persons and peoples, can be perceived as a conscious or
unconscious aspiration to live in the image of the supreme communion of life and
love, in which humankind was created (Gen. 1:26) and which mysteriously
beckons to human beings in various and ever new ways at every moment and
period of history.
That is why the search for visible Christian unity cannot be undertaken without
the interest of the churches in the renewal of the human community, a renewal
permanently desired and sustained by the one God.
13. Whereas polytheisms present a plethora of unrelated or warring divinities,
the oneness of God — Father, Son, and Holy Spirit — offers the coherence of all
created reality, at least in the final kingdom, when all sin and disruption will have
been overcome and “God will be all in all” (1 Cor. 15:24-28). This Christian
doctrine of God also provides a framework for locating those semina Verbi which
are the signs of the presence and activity of the one God “who is not far from each
one of us, for ‘in him we live and move and have our being’” (Acts 17:27-28).
What others still “worship as unknown” the church now proclaims (17:23) when it
preaches the Saviour whom God has appointed to judge the world (cf. 17:30-31).
This is none other than the Jesus who is “the way, the truth, and the life”, our
access to the Father (John 14:6).
14. Belief in one God (monotheism) is a shared patrimony of several religious
traditions, notably Christianity, Judaism, Islam , and even African traditional
religion. Whereas the first three, said to be religions of the “Book”, base their belief
on an explicit revelation, African traditional religion derives its belief rather from a
spontaneous intuition of a being, who must be behind the entire created order, as
its primary source and ultimate foundation.
Christians are sensitive to the fact that the other monotheistic traditions do not
share their faith in a Triune God and indeed often accuse Christians either of
polytheism (Islam) or idolatry (Judaism).
In answering the accusation of polytheism , it is important to stress that,
historically, no Christian writer of note (whether “orthodox” or “heretic”) has
ever been known to espouse tritheism. If anything, the over-riding concern in all
known Trinitarian controversies has been to preserve the unity of God intact.
We Believe in One God 23
Nevertheless, whereas the Christian belief in a Triune God is the affirmation of a
God who is koinonia and, therefore, personal, the Islamic affirmation is rather of a
God who is an absolute and eternal solitude. Such a God does not communicate
his very self to humanity nor invite humanity to enter into communion with
himself. Christians profess faith in a God, who is love (1 John 4:8). The others
believe in a God who is absolute will. With such a God there can be no communion
as Christians understand that word.
The root of the Judaic accusations of idolatry lies in the incarnation, and only
then addresses the Trinity. If the incarnation is a fable or a mere myth, then,
indeed, it would be idolatrous to adore and worship Christ. But the Old Testament
is as much the Book of Judaism as it is of Christianity. The same Old Testament
abounds in prophecies of an age in which God himself would erupt into human
history, and be “Immanuel” (“God with us”) (Isa. 7:14). If, as every Jew fervently
believes, God’s word is never sterile, but always accomplishes what it promises,
then the incarnation is entirely a possibility. Christians believe that the Old
Testament prophecies have been realized in Christ, and that, therefore, the
incarnation of God has found its fulfilment in him. In him, God’s word — in the
dual sense of “logos” and promise — has taken flesh: the Logos has become
incarnate and the promise has found historical realization. Therefore, Christians
do not consider it idolatrous to profess faith in Christ as God, and to adore and
worship him as such, always within the context of the Trinitarian faith.
So far as African traditional believers are concerned, they would wish for a
justification of the Christian faith in a God who is both three and one, without
being polytheistic or “diffusely monotheistic”, as some have described the African
traditional type of monotheism. The difficulty encountered here could be resolved
in an eventual dialogue between both faiths: Christianity and African traditional
religion.
For the rest, notwithstanding the apparently insurmountable differences be-
tween the various monotheistic traditions, the door should be open for dialogue
between them. Such dialogue, carried out in an atmosphere of openness to divine
guidance and inspiration, can be expected to bear fruits of greater mutual under-
standing and mutual respect among the various traditions. We may all come to see
new things in our own tradition.
Note: For their better understanding, many in the church today are seeking
clarification concerning the doctrine of the Triune God. Needed, in the first place,
is a greater appreciation of the issues at stake in the early centuries, so that the
scope and importance can be seen of the conciliar decisions taken concerning the
truth of the faith and the marks of Christian identity. Without an awareness of this
historical background, the summary formulas risk either being reduced to mere
badges of orthodoxy for parrot-like repetition or else rejected without yet being
understood. The hallowed formulas of the early church are best kept alive in the
liturgy and theology of the church when they are expounded in preaching that
draws upon the whole scriptural history of salvation and seeks to make the
message intelligible to contemporary men and women.
B. THE FATHER ALMIGHTY
I. The THEME
1. The Creed goes on to identify the one God more specifically as “Father
Almighty”. Much else that might also be affirmed concerning the being and nature
24 One God, One Lord, One Spirit
of God — his eternity, wisdom, goodness, faithfulness and so on — is implicitly
included in this personal name , which lies at the heart of the first article as the
fundamental characterization of the God in whom we believe. It gives the pre-
ceding description, “One God”, substantive content, and leads on to the following
words, “Maker of heaven and earth . . which draw out further one main
dimension of its meaning.
2. At the same time, to call God “Father Almighty” already points forward to
the second article and to the uniquely-begotten Son. This makes clear that the
Father is supremely Father of the Son; that “one God” cannot properly be taken as
referring only to the Father in isolation but directs us instead to the undivided
Trinity of Father, Son, and Holy Spirit; and, in general, that the first article does
not stand alone but is followed by and integrally related to the second and third. In
this sense, to affirm the one God as Father Almighty is to denote the ultimate
theological foundation of everything else in the Creed. There is therefore every
reason for this study to consider with care what this affirmation expresses, how it
may be open to distortion and misunderstanding, and its bearing on the contem-
porary articulation of our common faith. With this aim in view, the following
sections will deal in turn with the terms “Father” and “Almighty”.
Commentary. The name “Father Almighty” may be analyzed grammati-
cally in two ways according to whether “Almighty” is treated as a substan-
tive in apposition to “Father” (“the Father, the Almighty”) or in a more
adjectival sense (“the Father Almighty”). The wording of the Ecumenical
Creed can be taken in either sense, and both interpretations have been
common in the history of the church. Each has its place. The first invites us to
consider the distinct meanings of “Father” and “Almighty”, the second to
attend to the force of their conjunction, in particular to the mutual qualific-
ation of “Father” by “Almighty” and “Almighty” by “Father”.
3. This analytical reflection is all the more necessary because the description of
God as “Father Almighty” is often employed with little consideration of the
original sense of the words, of the content and range of their meaning, or of their
relation to the rest of the Creed. That way lie serious dangers. The specifically
Christian sense of the first article may be lost from view; one-sidedly authoritarian,
paternalistic and triumphalistic associations may consciously or unconsciously
colour its interpretation; these in turn may call forth protests and objections,
issuing sometimes in rejection of the entire Christian faith. Such objections have
indeed been directed against both “Father” and “Almighty” as suitable descrip-
tions of God. They challenge us today to consider such questions as:
— Can the fatherhood of God properly be understood in a non-patriarchal and
non-authoritarian way?
— Does “feminine” as well as “masculine” imagery have a necessary place in
inclusive theological language? And, if so, can we go on to address God as “Our
Mother” as well as “Our Father”?
— In what sense do we affirm that God is the Father “Almighty”?
— What is the relation or resemblance between the sovereign power of God and
the “powers” at work in the world?
— What are the similarities and differences between the Christian affirmation of
the Father Almighty and comparable expressions used in other religions?
We Believe in One God 25
a) God the Father
II. The Creed
4. The confession of belief in God as Father undoubtedly carried with it belief in
God as creator of the whole universe. In the second and third centuries this was a
dominant theme in Christian writings. God is Father by virtue of his being Creator
of all things. This was underlined in the first article of the Creed by the close
association of “Father” with “Creator of heaven and earth”. Belief in the father-
hood of God as creator of all is a belief shared not only by Hellenistic Judaism and
the Greek world of the early centuries, but is common in the belief of many
religious peoples including African traditional religions.
5. The description of God as Father in the Ecumenical Creed bears a further
and yet profounder meaning: the Father is Father of “ Jesus Christ , the uniquely-
begotten Son of God”. The relation of the Father to this Son, of this Son to the
Father, is the axis on which the Nicene confession of faith turns. Arius had held
that the Son did not share the being and nature of the Father, but was, rather, his
primal creation, who might be described as “begotten” or “made” or “created” or
“established”, but who at any rate was not divine as the Father is divine. Against
Arius, the Creed witnessed that Jesus Christ is uniquely and distinctively Son of the
Father (“begotten, not made”), eternally one with the Father (“of one substance
with the Father”) and fully God (“Light of Light, true God of true God”). The
Council of Constantinople, in the final formulation of the Ecumenical Creed,
added that the Holy Spirit “proceeds from the Father”.
6. The close association of Creator and Almighty with Father in the opening
statement of the Creed tended to underline the idea that dominion and authority
belong to the fatherhood of God. The Father God is the one who rules and wields
authority over all creation. Too great an emphasis on these aspects of fatherhood,
particularly in the Greek world of the early centuries, easily led to the distortion of
the notion of fatherhood. It helped to produce an all-powerful, impassible absolute
deity, more a cause or principle than a person, thus overshadowing the personal
dimension contained in the word Father itself.
7. However, belief in the fatherhood of God, as it is confessed in the first article
of the Creed, was understood as referring particularly to the special relationship
between the First and Second Persons of the Trinity. The Father is Father of the
Son. The name Father belongs to God in virtue of his relation to the Son, Jesus
Christ. The use of the word father was common in the religions of the Ancient Near
East, often with biological and sexual connotations where an ancestor of a tribe
was thought to have had a god as his father or where the earth’s fertility was closely
connected with its divine impregnation. The Greek myths told of marriages
between the gods and mortal women and the birth of heroes.
8. In contradistinction to these, Christian belief in the fatherhood of God was
never intended to imply that God is male. “It is important to note that when the
Creed speaks of ‘Father’ and ‘Son’ in their relation to each other in the Trinity, it
does not mean to imply that God is male. As a human being, Jesus Christ is male.
But within the persons of the Trinity, there is no gender” (Kottayam report, p.9).
Although the biological metaphor of begetting is used for the eternal relationship
between the Father and the Son, the describing of Christ as the o«/y-begotten of
the Father not only indicates the uniqueness of this relationship but also its
otherness from any human begetting. Moreover, the words “God from God, Light
from Light” made clear that the begetting of the Son by the Father was not to be
26 One God, One Lord, One Spirit
understood in terms of human begetting. God the Father could never be seen as a
quasi-male, a human-like sexual father.
9. The statement of belief in the fatherhood of God was, further, understood
only in that unique relationship between Father and Son seen in the life, death and
resurrection of Jesus of Nazareth. The fatherhood of God is grasped in relation to
the centrality of the cross and resurrection. The Father is known most fully as
Father loving the world, when he allows his Son to be crucified (John 3:16). At the
same time the Son knows what it is to be Son when, in obedience to the Father’s
will, he shows his love for the Father in bearing the suffering of the cross,
dereliction and death. In response to the love and obedience of his Son, the Father
gives himself in the power of the Spirit to the crucified Son by raising him from the
dead. The cross is inseparable from the resurrection. When Jesus surrendered in
Gethsemane and on the cross and was raised from the dead, the true meaning of
fatherhood as it is confessed of God, the Father of the Son, Jesus Christ, is most
truly apprehended. Although the Son alone was crucified, the Father participated
mysteriously in the suffering on account of his love for the Son. It was in his love
that the Father abandoned Jesus to death on the cross and in his love that he raised
him from death to live. In the death, resurrection and ascension of the Son the
Father shares all the power and glory with his Son. Here God gives proof of a
radical difference from the all-powerful and impassible Father, and from the
misconceptions of human fatherhood which have distorted and limited the image
of God.
10. Nor was it only the second article of the Creed that gave content to the
notion of God the Father as confessed in the first article of the Creed. When the
three Persons of the Trinity were seen as perfectly open to the other and inter-
dependent, mutually indwelling each other, living in one another by virtue of
eternal love (John 17:21), then the monarchical and patriarchal picture of God the
Father as Head of a divine household gave way to a picture of fatherhood based on.
love and not lordship, on mutuality and not domination, on common life and not
subordination.
1 1 . Confession of belief in God the Father thus affirmed a network of re-
lationships'. God is Father of the Son within the Trinity, Father of the Son
incarnate as Jesus Christ and Father of all who by the power of the Holy Spirit are
incorporated into Christ, become adopted sons and daughters of the one Father,
and are thus enabled to confess God as truly “Our Father”. The sense of Father in
each of these several relationships must be differentiated. God cannot be called
Father of creation in the same sense as he is called Father of the Son, or Father of
all who are joined with the Son. But all of these senses cohere in Christ and are
grounded in the eternal Trinity.
III. The BIBLICAL WITNESS
12. Although the Father-Son image is used in the Old Testament to describe the
relation between Yahweh and the people of Israel, it is only one amongst many
images. What is however most striking is the character of God’s fatherhood that is
stressed. The Lord is Israel’s father because he “bought her with a price” (Deut.
32:6). The reference is to the deliverance from Egypt, the act of creation and
redemption which brought the nation into being. “When Israel was a child I loved
him . . . out of Egypt I called my Son ... I led them with cords of compassion”
(Hosea 11:1,4). In two passages in Jeremiah, God’s fatherhood is seen in his
caring, comforting and nurturing his young child (Jer. 31:9; 3:4). In Isaiah,
We Believe in One God 27
fatherhood is closely connected with God’s compassion upon his son and the word
Father is used in parallel to Redeemer (Isa. 63:16; 64:8).
13. Clearly what stands out is neither the maleness of God, nor a patriarchal
picture of a repressive authoritarian father. Rather, the qualities associated with
God’s fatherhood are those which have been designated as feminine and quite
wrongly assigned only to women. The Old Testament picture of father might more
accurately be described as that of a motherly father. This is further supported by
the motherhood images used of God. Yahweh is likened to a protective mother
bird (Isa. 31:5); a midwife (Ps. 22:9); the mother conceiving (Num. 11:12); the
pregnant mother (Isa. 46:3); the mother giving birth (Isa. 66:13); the suckling
mother (Isa. 49:45); the mother comforting her child (Isa. 66:13). Although these
powerful images of motherhood are used of Yahweh, Yahweh is never addressed
as “Mother” as God is addressed as Father.
14. In contrast to the Old Testament the notion of the fatherhood of God is
central in the New Testament. Again and again Jesus uses the term Abba to address
his Father. The unprecedented use of the term Abba for God evokes a close,
familiar relationship. Although by the time of Jesus the word was used by adults, it
was more often addressed by children to their father. Jesus’ relationship as Son to
God the Father echoes throughout the gospel stories. At the beginning of his life,
the story of the Virgin birth in Matthew and Luke points to the way in which God
is “uniquely his Father”. And at the end of his life in Gethsemane Jesus cries
“Abba, Father” (Mark 14:36) and, finally, on the cross he commends himself into
his Father’s hands (Luke 23:46). So close is the relationship between Jesus and his
Father that he could say to Philip: “he that hath seen me hath seen the Father”
(John 14:9).
1 5. It is not only Jesus who calls God “Abba”, for he commands and permits his
disciples to address God as “Abba”, “Owr Father ”. St Paul indicates that God is
our Father because he is first the Father of Jesus, who graciously allows us to share
in that unique Father-Son relationship. It is the Spirit who unites us with the Son
and who sets us free as his brothers and sisters by adoption, to call God “Abba”.
What Paul says of “sons” he says also of daughters (2 Cor. 6:16-18): communion
with the father is open to all human beings without differentiation. “For as many
are led by the Spirit of God, these are sons of God. For ye received not the Spirit of
bondage again unto fear; but ye received the Spirit of adoption whereby we cry
Abba, Father” (Rom. 8:14—15). “And because we are sons, God sent forth the
Spirit of his Son into our hearts, crying Abba, Father” (Gal. 4:6). As individuals
and as the church we call God Father in, with and through Jesus Christ, as adopted
sons and daughters.
IV. Today
16. The various meanings contained in the credal confession of God as Father
each carries a rich connotation for Christians today. The confession of God as
Father of all human beings implies that Christians are called to live in a familial
relationship with all peoples. This demands an awareness of others and an
openness to them. Moreover, God as Father of all gives gifts to all his children, not
only to Christians. The givenness of the familial relationship demands that the
inter-relatedness of the human family is taken seriously. What is done in one part
of the world has profound consequences for, and repercussions upon, other parts
of the human family. Christians are asked to share with and care for all who are
their brothers and sisters in their joys and sufferings.
28 One God, One Lord, One Spirit
17. But Christians are also part of the inner family of God , made sons and
daughters through their incorporation into the Son, Jesus Christ. They are to
recognize the way their Father nurtures and cares for his children, and nowhere
more truly than in the gift of himself in the eucharist. In the eucharist Christians
focus their brothers and sisters in their joys and sufferings.
18. Just as the Father of Israel and the Father of Jesus Christ required
obedience, so Christians are called to a life of obedience. God the Father is not the
coercive, authoritarian, domineering Father who holds his children to him by
force. He stands back, allows his children space and freedom to become what he
wills them to be. Just as when Israel was unfaithful God disciplined his children so
Christians are disciplined in love and mercy as they grow, through the power of the
Spirit, into the full stature of sons and daughters of their heavenly Father. But, as
the Son’s obedience to his Father drew him along the road of suffering and
obedience even to death, so Christians are called to follow that same way, knowing
that as in his fatherly love God raised his Son from death, and that in the same love
the Father wills to give to all his children the gift of eternal life.
19. In calling God Father neither the Bible nor the Creed intended to assign to
God male gender or biological fatherhood nor only the one-sided qualities we have
defined as masculine and assigned only to men. We discover a fatherhood which
embraces and transcends human differentiations and the limitations of role and
gender. While not wishing to surrender the confession of faith in God the Father,
nor the address given by Jesus to his disciples, “Our Father”, we recognize a need
to uncover the silent but complementary part of the tradition of a feminine face of
God. Further we believe that Christians are free to explore language, symbols and
imagery which celebrate the feminine in God. It is this God who encompasses
and transcends male and female, masculine and feminine, who liberates both men
and women from the false stereotypes of masculine and feminine which have
entrapped us all.
20. As we learn to celebrate the “ motherly Father ” we revalue the feminine in
human life and are offered new possibilities for achieving integration within each
person as well as complementarity between women and men. The “motherly
Father” is moreover the God who cares for and nurtures all his children, the one
concerned for the weak, oppressed and the most vulnerable, the children. And it is
this God who loves and shares all that he has, who judges hierarchical structures
when they oppress and dominate in the church and in the world. To confess God as
Father is to acknowledge a wholeness in God which we are called to reflect in
ourselves, in our relationships with each other, in the life and structures of
our society and not least in a renewed community of women and men in the
church.
Commentary: While we all agree both that we must continue to confess
our belief in “God the Father Almighty” as a given part of our Tradition and
also that we need to recover a feminine face to God, there is as yet no
agreement amongst us as to whether we may go on to address God as “Our
Mother”. However, the fact that saints and mystics in the past have felt free
to address God both as Father and Mother gives many the confidence to use
both forms of address in their prayer to God.
“As truly as God is our Father, so just as truly is he our Mother” (Julian of
Norwich).
We Believe in One God 29
b) The Almighty
21 . The almightiness of God has often been understood and presented as sheer,
absolute omnipotence, naked, irresistible power, the capacity to do whatever one
wants. Such omnipotence seems to exclude the possibility of genuine freedom for
any of his creatures; it can also pose the question, in the face of evil, sin, injustice,
suffering and death, whether an omnipotent God can possibly also be good and
loving. As an ancient dilemma puts it: “As the world is manifestly imperfect, its
creator cannot be both good and all-powerful, for if he were both, the world for
which he is responsible would be perfect. If he is omnipotent, he cannot be good; if
he is good, he cannot be all-powerful.” The affirmation that the Father is almighty
thus seems to face us with an unresolvable problem of theodicy. But is the idea of
omnipotence presupposed here the same as what the Creed affirms? The Creed
itself suggests not.
II. The Creed
22. The Greek term used here in the Creed is Pantokrator , literally, “the one
who holds and governs all things”. It does not mean, in an abstract way, “one who
can do anything he wants”, but rather “one in whose hands all things are”. It is less
a description of absolute omnipotence than of universal providence. To call the
Father Pantokrator is to affirm that the whole universe is in his grasp, that he does
not and will not let it go.
23. At the time of the framing of the Ecumenical Creed in the fourth century,
the wording and content of the first article were not controversial (though its
relation to the second and third articles and their connection with it formed the
pivot of the entire debate with Arianism). Its elements were already well-estab-
lished common ground, solidly anchored in the tradition of faith, worship and
theology. That tradition, however, had to be maintained and defended in earlier
conflicts with Gnosticism , which drew a radical distinction between the Father of
Jesus Christ and the Creator or cause of this material universe. The identification
one God = Father = Pantokrator = Maker of heaven and earth was successfully
upheld in the face of the determined opposition from those who could not and
would not accept the goodness of creation or the Creator, who could not and
would not believe in a Creator who was also Redeemer, who could not and would
not recognize that the God of Israel was the Father of Jesus Christ, that the
universe was indeed guided and directed by his sovereign providence. It is in this
setting that the particular force of the inclusion of Pantokrator in the Creed is to be
understood.
24. At the same time, the affirmation that the Father is also Pantokrator
brought with it (at least in principle) the dethroning of all other claimants to
universal sovereignty, to government and mastery over the world and its history
and destiny. There were many such claimants : the Hellenistic pantheon; determin-
istic Fate; the Platonic Forms; Aristotle’s Unmoved Mover; the impersonal
World-Reason of the Stoic philosophy; the esoteric teachings and rituals of the
mystery religions; the Gnostic archons; or even — not least! — the apotheosis of
earthly dominion in the Roman imperial cult. Against all of these the church and
the Creed affirmed: the Father of Jesus Christ, and none other, is Pantokrator.
III. The biblical witness
25. The Old Testament is full of testimonies to the power, majesty, sovereignty
and faithfulness of God as displayed in creation (e.g. Ps. 93), in the ordering of the
30 One God, One Lord, One Spirit
natural world and — above all — in the history of Israel, most particularly in the
Exodus from Egypt. But the Old Testament never speaks of an abstract omnipo-
tence, but of God’s power manifested in action. It was also only relatively late that
it came to proclaim the God of Israel as Creator of the world and sovereign over all
other powers. The circumstances of this proclamation are of significance. It came
in the time of the Exile after the destruction of Jerusalem and the Temple, after the
apparent humiliation and defeat of Yahweh by Marduk, the god of Babylon in the
days when Israel’s trust in him might seem to have lost all basis. It was precisely
then that Deutero-Isaiah announced that this God ruled over the world and its
history, that the gods of the nations were mere idols and their rulers instruments of
his purposes, and, not least, that he remained faithful to his covenant. The message
was one of promise, mercy and assurance in spite of all that appeared to contradict
it in the existing state of affairs. Its ground lay in Yahweh’s strength and
faithfulness: “But now thus says the Lord, he that created you, O Jacob, and he
that formed you, O Israel: Fear not, for I have redeemed you; I have called you by
name, you are mine” (Isa. 43:1). Thus says the Lord, the King of Israel and his
Redeemer, the Lord of hosts: “I am the First and I am the Last; besides me there is
no god . . . Fear not, nor be afraid” (Isa. 44:6-8). His might is paradoxically
revealed in and through the suffering of his servant (e.g. Isa. 49).
26. The use of the word Pantokrator in the New Testament is strikingly similar.
It is a relatively rare word in Greek, but was used on a number of occasions in the
Septuagint to translate Hebrew expressions whose original meaning is now ob-
scure, but which are usually rendered as “Almighty” (El Shaddai) or “Lord of
hosts” (Adonai Zeba’oth). In the New Testament it occurs only a few times, all but
one in the Apocalypse. Characteristic is Revelation 1:8: “I am the Alpha and the
Omega, says the Lord God, who is and who was and who is to come, the
Pantokrator .” The Pantokrator is the First and the Last, he who was and is and will
be. As such, he is God and Lord. The affirmation has both a clear liturgical ring
and an apocalyptic colour. It is a solemn, longing and jubilant cry of praise and
hope in the midst of a dark and profoundly ambiguous world, a world indeed
which appears to be in the hands of Antichrist. The same note of confident trust is
struck in the single New Testament passage outside the Apocalypse in which
Pantokrator is used — 2 Corinthians 6:16-18. This hymns the faithfulness and the
calling of God (with rich echoes of Old Testament prophecy) and ends: “and I will
be a father to you, and you shall be my sons and daughters, says the Lord
Pantokrator ” (v. 18). This points us to the authentic sense of the affirmation of the
Father as Pantokrator in the New Testament itself: it is doxological and eschato-
logical, testifying to the faithfulness and ultimate sovereignty of God as the ground
of faith, confidence and trust — and also of our calling and obedience.
27. The affirmation has, however, a yet deeper ground in the gospel, and one
which more than all that has been mentioned so far discloses the nature and quality
of God’s sovereign power. For that power is not simply a projection, magnified to
the nth degree, of worldly authority and imperial pretensions. Nor is it simply a
kind of universal cosmic energy or an irresistible force of history. It is a freedom
and a sovereignty so transcendent that God could enter into his own creation in the
incarnation, and there victoriously assert his claim upon it in and through what
appeared to be the absolute and final negation of his power, the crucifixion of the
incarnate Son. It is not enough to regard the cross as a kind of temporary eclipse of
God’s sovereign power, subsequently followed by its triumphant vindication in the
Resurrection. In the apparent defeat, in the powerlessness of the cross and the death
We Believe in One God 31
of the Crucified lies the assertion and realization of God’s sovereignty and
providence over and in a world estranged from him. God did not let go of his
creation, but in the Son assumed human nature and held fast to it into the jaws of
destruction. Only supreme freedom, love and power could so express itself and
maintain its hold through death to resurrection. The crucified Christ is “the power
of God and the wisdom of God. For the foolishness of God is wiser than men, and
the weakness of God is stronger than men” (1 Cor. 1 : 24-25). This is the sense in
which God is supremely Pantokrator, the one who holds all things, in whose hands
the world and its destiny are securely grasped in spite of the reality of evil, sin,
suffering, and death.
To return to the Creed: the full depth of the first article is only disclosed in the
second, for it is there that the inner quality and character of the divine sovereignty
and providence are spelt out in Jesus Christ as those of a love which claims, holds
fast, redeems and restores, and which is stronger even than death. Here is revealed
the profoundest intensity of the divine lordship which in its full extension stretches
out to include the whole created universe and in its intention drives towards the
reign of God in the new heaven and new earth.
IV. Today
28. The affirmation of the Almightiness of the Father in the sense intended by
the Creed remains as relevant today as ever before, indeed bears directly on urgent
questions and concerns of the present time. The confession itself has not changed;
it is the same yesterday, today and tomorrow, as is the One whom it recognizes,
celebrates and proclaims. But the challenges to faith today mean that it could be
both appropriate and fruitful for our common confession to recover and articulate
afresh the sense, simply yet powerfully expressed and conveyed in the Creed, of
God’s sovereignty over, in and for the world he has made of which we are part.
29. First, the affirmation today is, as in every previous age, one of faith — faith
that God will carry through his gracious and merciful purposes for humanity and
for the world to their consummation and realization through the establishing of his
kingdom in a new heaven and a new earth. Faith learns from that anticipation to
distinguish between what is still hidden, but will be, and what is now, but will not
endure. In particular, it draws from it the confident assurance that “the powers of
the present age” — whether political, economic, scientific, industrial, military,
ideological or indeed religious — do not control and will not have the last word
concerning the destiny of the world and humankind. The Lordship of the Almighty
relativizes and judges them all. The confession of faith in that Lordship, that
Almightiness, is itself subversive of all other claims to sovereignty, a challenge to
every form of enslaving bondage, a celebration of the liberating strength of the
Creator of heaven and earth, and a sign and testimony of hope for each individual
and for the whole created universe. The church is called to affirm and proclaim this
faith against all appearances to the contrary, not only as its own deep longing, but
as the promise and word of the Lord.
30. Second, this proclamation and commission is one of hope in the face of all
that now ominously threatens the future of the world and the human race: the
nuclear arms-race between the super-powers with the apocalyptic nightmares it
generates; the ecological crisis; the catastrophic imbalance in the distribution of
material resources and their economic exploitation between different countries and
regions of the world; the appalling reality of violent conflict, senseless war,
inhuman tyranny, oppression, injustice and persecution. Whatever the future may
32 One God, One Lord, One Spirit
bring, whatever evil may be inflicted or suffered, none can fall out of God’s hand.
This hope gives confidence to witness to the sovereignty of God in word and in
action, to resist the forces of destruction, to recognize and proclaim that he is Lord
of all areas of life, both individual and societal.
3 1 . Third, the character of God’s sovereignty as other-affirming and self-giving
love evokes and enables love for God and neighbour as the motive and dynamic of
Christian life and service. The Almightiness affirmed in the Creed is that of the
Father who so loved the world that he gave his Son. The church needs constantly to
be on guard against presenting him as if he were a tyrannical despot; against the
temptation to approve or support authoritarian oppression in his name; against
understanding and projecting its own mission and calling as an exercise of power
and control over its members or society at large. The gospel proclaims the
Almightiness of the Father as the reality of eternal love, strong to create, maintain
and redeem the children of God, and liberating them to grateful service in that
same strength, the love of God poured out in their hearts by his Spirit.
c) Conclusion: the Father Almighty
32. Implicit in all that is said above is that “Father” and “Almighty” mutually
qualify each other. It is the Father, and no other, who is the Almighty; and as the
Father he is indeed Almighty, and nothing less. To speak only of the Father,
forgetting that he is Almighty, risks trivializing and sentimentalizing the divine
fatherhood; to speak only of the Almighty, as if he were not also Father, is to risk
projecting a demonic vision of sheer arbitrary power as if that corresponded to the
reality of God. Only when the two aspects are both seen together, and their
interpretation controlled by the revelation of their meaning in Jesus Christ, are
these dangers guarded against.
33. The Father is indeed almighty. He is not powerless to achieve what he will,
to fulfill and complete his good purpose for humankind and the whole creation.
His power transcends all other powers which are created by him and remain
subject to him. As such, it is a power of a radically different order and quality from
them all.
34. The Almighty is indeed Father. He is not an indifferent or uncaring ruler
who seeks only to exploit and dominate his creatures. His love establishes them in
relative freedom and independence, allowing them even to revolt against him and
reject him. Yet even there he accompanies, supports and reaches out to redeem
them as, we may say, the “motherly Father”.
35. The Father is not the God projected by deism, absent from and unaffected
by his creation. Nor is he the God of theism who engages with the world only
“from above”. Nor is he merely creative power or absolute will as proclaimed in
some religions and philosophies. In dialogue with such views the church should not
too quickly assume that the first article of the Creed is common ground with them,
for if the decisively Christian element is missing the entire perspective is altered.
The One God affirmed in the Creed is not only Maker of heaven and earth;
he is the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, the God of the Exodus and the
covenant, above all the good Father of Jesus Christ — and as such also the
Almighty.
We Believe in One God 33
C. THE CREATOR AND HIS CREATION
I. The THEME
1 . Together with people of other faiths, e.g. in Africa, Christians believe that the
world in which they live is not an autonomous entity, having its origins, life and
destiny in itself. Rather they believe that the world and the whole cosmos, things
seen and unseen, are the work of a Creator God, who is not only the cause of its
being but also the continuing source of its life and final goal of its existence.
2. This belief in a Creator God and a created cosmos is confessed in the first
article of the Nicene Creed on the basis of the biblical witness which gives the
Christian belief its specific content over against that of other religions. How then is
this fundamental Christian confession of a Creator and a creation and the relation
between the two to be interpreted?
3. Christians confess a Trinitarian God in relation to the world as creation. God
the Father created the world from nothing through his word. God the Son became
part of creation in the incarnation. God the Holy Spirit is continuously active in
the creation leading it to its final consummation. What are the implications of this
comprehensive Trinitarian perspective, e.g. for the relation between creation and
redemption?
4. The concern for the “integrity of creation” (Vancouver 1983), for the
preservation, responsible use and just distribution of the resources of this world
and the survival of the whole world and of humanity in face of the nuclear threat
has become an issue of life or death in our times. What are then basic orientations
which can be developed on the foundation of the Christian confession of God the
Creator and of the world as his creation for a Christian contribution to the
common human concern for the integrity of creation?
II. The Creed
5. The church inherited the Old Testament faith that God is “the Maker of
heaven and earth, the visible and invisible world” (Gen. 1; cf. Col. 1 : 15f.), and like
ancient Israel, it had to face questions about the goodness of God’s creation and of
the mystery of evil in the world. In the first centuries after Christ the interpretation
of creation became again controversial when heretical teachings drove a sharp
wedge between the visible and the invisible world, between matter and spirit, the
God of the Old Testament and of creation on the one hand and the God and
Father of Jesus Christ on the other, between Israel and the church, between the Old
Testament writings and the New Testament scriptures. At the time when the Creed
was formulated at the Council of the fourth century, it was necessary to reaffirm
the faith that God the Father is also the Creator , in order to exclude heresies which
denied the identity of the creator and the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ
(e.g. Marcionism and Gnosticism). Faith in the creation of all there is as God’s
handiwork once again affirmed the created world as the good work of God the
Father and, at the same time, of the Son “through whom”, as the second article
confesses, “all things were made”, and not an evil world hostile to God. God is the
Creator who created a good world and also a good humanity. He is not just the one
who redeems humanity out of the world and from the world.
6. God made not only the heavens but also the earth, not only the visible but
also the invisible world. The visible world, too, is good and not evil; it comes from
God and not from the devil. In its struggle for a proper understanding of the world
and humanity’s existence in it, the church thus emerged not with a world-denying,
34 One God, One Lord, One Spirit
but with a world-affirming faith. Likewise, the invisible intermediate world, the
“metaphysical” realm, the “things between heaven and earth”, the numinous
forces — all that which the ancient world worshipped as divine — is not divine but
belongs to the world created by the one true God. Even the invisible and spiritual
things, the subconscious and suprasensible realities, are part of the created
universe. God the Creator alone is divine; the invisible world too, even the heavens,
are his handiwork.
III. The biblical witness
7. Israel’s creation faith which has found its classical expression in the well-
known creation stories of Genesis 1-2, owes much to the religious traditions of the
ancient peoples of the Near East, the Assyrians, Babylonians, and the Canaanites.
However, what Israel has received, it has also drastically transformed and re-
moulded to express its own response to God’s revelation. The dualistic myths and
theories of the origin of the world which were known among Israel’s neighbours
assumed a pre-existent matter or partner or opponent outside God which is party
to the event of creation. By contrast, Israel confessed that there is nothing besides
God that is not “made” and does not owe its existence to him. The whole
creation — the heavens as well as the earth, the visible and also the invisible
world — has come into being through God and is completely dependent upon him
as its Maker (Gen. 1-2; Ps. 8; Isa. 44:24; Matt. 5:34-35; Acts 4:24; 14:15; 17:24;
Eph. 3:9; Rev. 4:11). Thus distinguishing clearly between the Creator and the
creation, Israel has drastically demythologized the ancient understanding of all
reality.
8. The confession of God the Maker of heaven and earth rings full of praise, for
creation bears witness to God’s incomparable majesty which he shares with no other
(2 Kings 19:15-19; Neh. 9:6; Isa. 40:25-26); it shows forth God’s wisdom and
power (Ps. 104:24; Prov. 3: 19-20; Jer. 10:12-13; Rom. 1 : 20-21); it bears witness to
God’s steadfast love and care (Ps. 136:4-9; Matt. 6:26-32). The majesty of God,
reflected in his works of creation, is the basis for worshipping and thanksgiving for
trusting and obeying him (Ps. 95; Isa. 40:27-31). God stands in a personal ,
covenantal (Gen. 8:22; Jer. 33:20) relationship to his creation : his divine decree
determines its order (Gen. 1:14-19; Job 38:33; Ps. 104:9; 148:6; Jer. 5:24;
31:35-36), and his continuing power upholds and renews the creatures (Ps.
104:29-30). It is at God’s command that the earth produces vegetation and
animals (Gen. 1:11-12, 24-25). Through his word God directs the course of
history and shapes the lives of women and men (Jer. 1 :9— 10; Isa. 55: 10-11; Heb.
4:12). All creation, including inanimate nature, is praising its Creator (Ps. 148).
9. In the New Testament the soteriological and eschatological significance of
creation, already broached in the Old Testament, comes to the fore and is reflected
upon in the context of the work of Jesus Christ and of the Holy Spirit: God
the Creator is the First, and he is also the Last (Isa. 44:6; 48: 12). He created in the
beginning, he creates now, and he will create in the future (Rev. 1 :4, 8; 4:8). In the
end God will be all in all (1 Cor. 15:28) and there will be “a new heaven and a new
earth” (2 Pet. 3:13; Rev. 21:1; cf. Isa. 66:22). Creative renewal through God’s
Spirit is experienced by God’s people (Ez. 36:26-28; Jer. 31:31-34) who in
Christ — the agent of God’s creation (1 Cor. 8:8; Col. 1 : 17) — become signs of the
new creation (2 Cor. 5:17; Gal. 6:15). But not only this, non-human creatures as
well and nature itself will be transformed and will participate in God’s new world
(Rom. 8:19-23; cf. Isa. 11:6-9; 41:17-20; 43:18-21; Hos. 2:18).
We Believe in One God 35
New Testament writers see the design of creation in Jesus Christ (1 Cor. 8:6;
John 1:1-18). God creates, sustains, redeems, and perfects his creation through
Christ who is the centre of all there is (Col. 1:15-17; Eph. 1:9-10; Heb. 1:2-3).
Living under Christ as its head (Col. 1:18; Eph. 1:22-23) and its members being
continuously transformed into the image of God’s Son (Rom. 8:29; 1 Cor. 15:49;
2 Cor. 3:18; 2 Cor. 4:4; Col. 1:15; 3:10), the church has a new and deepened vision
of the sovereign purpose of the Creator and Redeemer whom to serve it has been
called, firmly believing in the future resurrection of the body and in the life of the
world to come.
Belief in the creative power of God’s word (Gen. 1; John 1 : 1-3; Heb. 11:3) and
the confidence that God is able to create “out of nothing” (Rom. 4:17; Heb. 1 1 :3;
cf. Matt. 3:9) are as characteristic of the Christian faith in God the Creator as is
the conviction that everything has a beginning, that creation is the starting point of
history, that all human existence has a historical character (1 Cor. 15:42-50; 1 Tim.
6:16) and that creation serves a divine purpose.
IV. Today
10. “The first article of the Creed suggests that the doctrine of creation should
remain simply implicit.” This was a conclusion of the Princeton consultation in
1981 on the doctrinal implications of BEM1 and in Lima in 1982 it was stated:
“The notion of God as Creator needs further work.”2 We agree that the expli-
cation of the first article is a timely and urgent task.
a) The Triune God as the Creator
1 1 . The relative independence of the first article of the Creed implies that it is
possible and meaningful to speak about God the Creator without first speaking
about God the Son or God the Holy Spirit. It is here, in the first article, that the
doctrine of creation Has its original, primal and proper place. The one God, Father
Almighty, is here confessed as “Maker of heaven and earth”.
12. It is not possible to exhaust the meaning of the first article by referring to the
second and third. It would be just as impossible to develop a Christian theology of
creation only from the point of view of the first article. The Trinitarian perspective
is indispensable from the beginning. The Triune God is the God who created all
that is, the God above creation, the God before all time who through his word from
the beginning created everything out of nothing, in Christ, “through whom
everything is made”, and in the Spirit, hovering over the waters. Already in and
through the word of God, he entered into the creation. In the incarnation of the
Son the Creator became himself part of the creation, the God in creation. The
Spirit also is at work from the beginning as the creative giver of life. Thus the
creation must be understood no longer in animistic or pantheistic terms but rather
Christologically, incarnationally, spiritually and sacramentally — as the ongoing
act of the Trinity.
b) The Creator acts — in redemption and revelation
13. While the first article deserves its own place, the ecumenical issue is not the
doctrine of the Creator/creation per se. The question rather is how creation relates
to revelation, redemption, sanctification, the new creation — all as acts of the same
Triune God. That the Creed begins with the confession of the Creator has its
theological significance also for the understanding of redemption and revelation.
36 One God, One Lord, One Spirit
14. In the faith of Israel God was the God of history who made himself known
in decisive events. Israel knew, too, that this same God is the Lord of all history
and of all other nations. But first of all Israel came to know him as the God of the
covenant long before any clear understanding of God as Creator of heaven and
earth was formulated.3 It is important to recognize the theological relevance of the
fact that the Creed first confesses faith in the Creator. At the same time it is God’s
saving act in the historical establishment of the covenant which is the revelatory
presupposition for the biblical faith in creation. “The covenant is the internal basis
of the creation, but the creation is the external basis of the covenant.”4
15. God acts by his word, his word accompanies and interprets his acts. The
Triune God “has not left himself without witness” (Acts 14:17), but revealed and
continues to reveal himself in many and various ways in the world and in history.
God reveals himself in his works, in creation, “in the things that have been made”
(Rom. 1 :20), and especially in the human beings who were created in his image and
likeness, who “show that what the law requires is written in their hearts”
(Rom. 2:15).
16. The knowledge of God given in his creation must not be isolated from the
whole of the biblical revelation. Creation is a self-disclosure of God (Rom. 1:18);
however, there is an essential difference between the incomplete knowledge of God
attainable through creation and the self-disclosure of his mystery through the
history of salvation which culminates in the event of Jesus Christ as a new unique
and final disclosure. The framework of the unity of creation, nature, history and
consummation is maintained, at the same time as this whole concept is deepened
and elaborated through the experience of God’s incomparable action in history in
Jesus Christ.5 It is in this wider perspective that the doctrine of creation has its
proper place and significance.
c) God’s good creation — and evil
17. God saw it was good — this is the chorus at every evening of the days of
God’s creation (Gen. 1). Also today it is important to Christian faith to emphasize
the positive factors of life, the goodness of creation and its inherent possibilities for
the future of humankind. Life is a gift of God. When God gave his mandates —
already in the Garden of Eden, at Sinai, but also in the form of “the law written in
their hearts” (Rom. 2:15) — it was to protect and promote life and the goodness of
creation.
18. To believe in God the Creator is to begin to understand and to appreciate
his creation. The more human beings come to recognize the marvels and the
dynamic openness of the macrocosmos and the microcosmos, the more evident is
the greatness and glory of the Creator. The Creator is still at work. The creation is
going on around us and in and with us. This is existentially relevant here and now:
“I believe that God has created me and all other creatures, that he has given me my
body and soul . . . and still preserves them ...” (Martin Luther). The creation is
a dynamic reality, it is a creatio continua, going on towards its consummation.
19. But the goodness and wholeness of creation are constantly threatened by
death and decay which are characteristic of the perishable life of the creation (cf. 1
Cor. 15:42ff.), and also by catastrophies in nature and the sufferings inflicted upon
people by people. All nature and the whole of history are marked by that
ambiguity , which is characteristic of this world as we know it in our daily
experience. Relationships between God and his creatures are impaired — it was
only the Creator himself who could recreate relations in Jesus Christ. The Creator
We Believe in One God 37
was the one who reconciled the world to himself (2 Cor. 5:19), and so affirmed the
world as his creation and manifested his faithfulness to it. In him a new creation
was revealed, a transformation started, beyond sin and brokenness.
20. The ambiguity and discontinuity are shown not only in man’s rebellion
against God, but in all creatures in all nature (Rom. 8:22f.). The whole creation is
waiting for liberation. God’s creative and redemptive work will not be complete
until all powers of darkness are definitely brought under the rule of God as he
wants the whole earth to be full of the glory of his covenant. The creation is from
its origin pointing forwards, dynamically, eschatologically, to the day when Christ
is to consummate the whole creation in the eternal kingdom of God.
d) Humanity in creation
21. The creation of men and women is described as the high point of the
Creator’s work. God also immediately employs the human beings as his cooper-
ators and stewards (Gen. 1 :26f.), even rulers (Ps. 8). He puts them in charge to take
care of, use and develop his creation. Faith focuses not only on my Creator alone,
but rather on the God who created everything, my environment, nature, the
cosmos. And yet, the Creator gave special responsibility to all men and women in
all times to be his representatives — to care for his “garden”.
22. However, humanity has also refused to obey God’s mandate, refused to be
his representatives, and instead abused God’s good creation. The freedom God had
given was used, not to pursue his high calling, but to act contrary to God’s will.
Humankind, created in God’s image (Gen. 1:27), turned away from God, and
became the slaves of their own sin. And yet, he still holds an almost divine position
(Ps. 8), even as sinner and in spite of his rebellion.
23. In Jesus Christ, as the firstborn of a new creation, God has renewed and
continues to renew humanity. Women and men are continuously set free again to
discover their Creator, released from the bonds of enslavement in order to be truly
human, to live in “a new solidarity with all God’s creatures”.6
24. The first article emphasizes the creatureliness of all that is, and the human-
ness of our life in God’s world. This has consequences for the whole Christian
faith, including our understanding of the humanity of Christ, the view of the
church as his body, the notion of the resurrection of the body — both Christ’s and
ours, the concept of sacraments with their use of water , bread and wine. In baptism
we make use of water as a symbol of cleansing and renewal, and as part of the
eucharistic celebration “thanksgiving is offered for creation as well as for redemp-
tion and sanctification” with bread and wine, “fruits of the earth and human
labour”, as “signs of the final renewal of creation”.7
e) Consequences
( 1) Humanity’s mandate over nature and the destruction of our environment
25. The dominion over nature and creatures given to humanity (Gen. 1 : 26-28)
and our special status as “image of God” (Gen. 1 :27) as God’s representative and
steward above and over against creation, our nearly divine position, with nature
“under our feet” (Ps. 8:6-7), are being made responsible for the exploitation of
nature and the destruction of the environment. Blame is put at least upon the effect
which these Old Testament thoughts have had due to their misunderstanding by
man who has emancipated himself from God. Undoubtedly the separation of the
creation from the Creator and the desacralization of nature through the Jewish and
38 One God, One Lord, One Spirit
Christian faith in God the Creator, together with the human drive for rational
comprehension and an emancipating mastery over the world, have contributed to
the origin and development of the sciences and technology — and thus also to the
destructive results for our environment. Because of the transcendence of the
Creator and his position above creation, in which man participates as God’s
deputy, man is not the brother of nature but its lord and master.
26. If the Old Testament is rightly understood, it does not legitimize by any
means the exploitation of nature and the destruction of the environment. Quite the
contrary, in his commission as God’s deputy and steward , men and women are
called to responsibility for God’s creation, into which they remain embedded. Also
according to Gen. 2:15 God’s creation is a garden which man is told “to till and to
keep”. The creation belongs to the Creator, and as its steward the human person is
accountable to God. The human being may use creation but must not exploit it.
27. However, an ethic of creation and environment, based solely on “steward-
ship”, is in danger of being interpreted in an anthropocentric sense. According to
such an understanding nature must serve human beings, it exists exclusively for
their sake. Then the permission to eat meat (Gen. 9) can be misused as to lead to
consequences like the millions of experiments made with animals today. People do
not protect nature for its own sake, not because it is God’s creation, but rather in
order to protect themselves from the dreaded consequences of the destruction of
the environment. Furthermore, modern science and technology have given us
means and possibilities which go far beyond responsible “stewardship”. An ethic,
based merely upon the concept of human responsibility, does no longer suffice
today when one considers the tremendous potential of science and technology and
their impact upon nature, especially the threatening destruction of the world as we
know it and the annihilation of humankind through atomic warfare. An anthropo-
centrically based ethic of the environment no longer suffices because the preser-
vation of the creation demands of men and women the surrender of privileges and
advantages which have been assumed because of their control over nature.
(2) Human responsibility in a world sanctified by the Triune God
28. It is possible to supplement an anthropocentric ethic of the environment
with a creation-centred ethic, provided one does it from a Trinitarian point of
departure. For God the Creator thrones above his creation; in Jesus Christ,
however, he has entered into his creation, has himself become a suffering creature
and is thus present in creation. The Christological basis provides faith in God’s
creation with the element of purpose and goal: the cosmos was created through
Christ and to him, all things hold together in him (Col. 1 : 17f.). In Jesus Christ the
Creator no longer simply stands over against or above his creation, rather he has
himself become present in a world threatened by exploitation and destruction. A
creation, into which the Creator has entered, is sanctified through the incarnation.
Viewed Christologically, the Creator is not relegated to the past, rather he has
presence and future: thus the deistic misunderstanding of the creation is avoided in
that the temporal distance between the Creator and his present creation is over-
come. And in Christ, the Creator is not only transcendent but also immanent; he is
not only above the creation but also in creation: thus the theistic misunderstanding
of the creation is avoided, namely the distance and the separation of the Creator
from his creation which was expressed in the spatial symbol of the “beyond”.
29. Furthermore, the preservation of God’s creation is imperative also in light
of the third article, i.e. from a pneumatological perspective. Also the “creation in
We Believe in One God 39
the spirit” links God’s transcendence of the world with his immanence in it. As
Holy Spirit God is present and at work creating and preserving life in the processes
of the world. Through the Spirit God continues to give life and completes his work
towards his new creation.
30. Creation is sanctified through the presence and activity of the Triune God in
it. Whoever understands creation as sanctified through Christ and the Spirit, will
also keep it holy, preserve and protect it. He/she will share the fruits of creation
with justice; he/she will not arrogantly destroy God’s creation and creatures by
more and more sophisticated armaments, nor even use those to threaten them.
Thus human responsibility for creation, which is commanded, is confirmed and
supported inwardly as it were through faith in God, who has made the world in the
beginning, who stands above it and who has entrusted man with dominion over it.
The creation must not and cannot be destroyed through war or exploited ruthlessly
because, through man as his co-builder, God rules over it, enters into it and
continues to be at work in it.
31. All human responsibility in and for creation is exercised in the hope and
assurance of the restoration of all creation.
NOTES
1. The potential contribution of “Baptism, Eucharist and Ministry” to the wider project
“Towards the Common Expression of the Apostolic Faith Today”, Princeton report,
FO/81 :9, November 1981, p.16.
2. “The Community Study and Apostolic Faith: Memorandum from the Working Group
on the Community of Women and Men in the Church”, in “Towards Visible Unity”,
Vol. II, M. Kinnamon ed., Faith and Order Paper No. 113 , Geneva, WCC, 1982, p.48.
3. Cf. Bristol 1967, Faith and Order Paper No. 50, pp.9f.
4. Karl Barth, cf. Church Dogmatics III/l: The Doctrine of Creation, para. 41,2: Creation
as the External Basis of the Covenant; para. 41,3: The Covenant as the Internal Basis of
Creation; Edinburgh, 1958, pp.94ff., 228ff.
5. Cf. Bristol 1967, op. cit., pp.llf.
6. Cf. “The Report from Montreal 1963”, P. C. Rodger & L. Vischer eds, Faith and Order
Paper No. 42, London, 1964, p.43.
7. Princeton report, op. cit., pp.l5f.
We Believe in One God,
Father Almighty,
Maker of Heaven and Earth
Aspects of an Ecumenical Approach
to the First Article of the Creed
DAN-ILIE CIOBOTEA
Introductory note
I. Faith in God and the challenge posed by atheism
1. From the Kinshasa addresses
2. The Kinshasa text
3. The subsequent revisions
4. The Stavanger discussion
5. The Potsdam text
II. The Christian faith in one God, Father, Son and Holy Spirit, and the accusation
of polytheism and idolatry
1. From the Kinshasa addresses
2. The Kinshasa text
3. The subsequent revisions
4. The Stavanger discussion
5. The Potsdam text
III. Faith in God the Father in the present age of feminist theology
1. From the Kinshasa addresses
2. The Kinshasa text
3. The subsequent revisions
4. The Stavanger discussion
5. The Potsdam text
Introductory note
Of the ecumenical approach to the first article of the Creed, we have retained
three major aspects: I. Faith in God and the challenge posed by atheism. II. The
Christian faith in one God, Father, Son and Holy Spirit and the accusation of
Aspects of an Ecumenical Approach to the First Article 41
polytheism and idolatry. III. Faith in God the Father in the present age of feminist
theology.
There are of course other important aspects, such as for example faith in God as
Creator and human responsibility for the integrity of creation, but the limited
space available obliges us to restrict our discussion to the three major aspects
mentioned above.
In the following pages we shall give a brief presentation of the manner in which
these three major aspects of the Christian faith have been the object of ecumenical
reflection and effort on the occasion of the following meetings: (1) at Kinshasa
(Zaire), March 1985; (2) Geneva, April 1985; (3) Cret-Berard (Switzerland), May-
June 1985; (4) Stavanger (Norway), August 1985; and (5) Berlin/Potsdam (Ger-
man Democratic Republic), July 1986.
I. Faith in God and the challenge- posed by atheism
The quest for visible unity of faith in a world marked by atheism, especially in
Europe, is both difficult and necessary. True unity of faith cannot be achieved
where there is no intensity of faith. For this reason the quest for Christian unity in
the apostolic faith should be accompanied by a conscious realization on the part of
the churches that they should make more effort, individually and collectively, to
become confessing churches. Modern atheism, however, since it is born on
“Christian soil” where it very often means the same as lapsing from Christianity,
remains one of the greatest challenges facing the churches today, if not a judgment
(krisis) upon them: a challenge which calls primarily not for apologetics, but for a
humble and searching examination of the churches’ contribution, past and present,
to the phenomenon of atheism.
1. From the Kinshasa addresses
In the Kinshasa addresses the challenge of atheism was not discussed as an
independent subject. Sigurd Daecke , the West German Lutheran theologian, did
however tackle the modern challenges to the Christian creation belief in his paper
on the “The Creator and his Creation”. He sketched the constraints to which belief
in creation and in God have both been subjected in the last two centuries. At the
same time he identified some of the dimensions which must be opened up afresh if
faith in God is to gain new credibility today.
I believe — as the Nicene-Constantinopolitan Creed affirms in its opening words —
in one God, the Father Almighty, Maker of heaven and earth, of all things visible and
invisible. In other words, I believe in the Creator. Talk of the Creator is an utterance
of belief; a confession of faith. “God the Creator”, “God the Father”, “Jesus Christ”
as God’s “Son” and our “Lord”, and the “Holy Spirit” — these form a single series;
occur in a single complex of specifically Christian doctrinal statements and items, of
what must be believed and cannot be seen and known in the ordinary sense . . .
In fact, however, the only reason why belief in God the Creator seemed simpler,
easier and more self-evident than belief in Christ and in redemption, was because it
had been reduced in the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries in a deistic direction to
the simple statement of Gen 1 : 1 : “In (at) the beginning God created the heaven and
the earth.” Whereas Luther had already interpreted the doctrine of creation ex-
istentially by pointing to its significance for the individual (me) and his present life
(my life now), this doctrine was now reduced to an affirmation concerning the past,
about the beginning of all things, on which at that time science was still reduced to
silence and could say nothing. The doctrine of creation was diminished to a doctrine
of the origin of the world. In the first two chapters of Genesis, of course, this doctrine
42 One God, One Lord, One Spirit
still included a cosmogony — nowadays, too, this is often too little heeded — but this
cosmogony was not the message and centre of the doctrine. Although the creation
narratives of the Old Testament do indeed include affirmations concerning the origin
of the world, these do not constitute the essence and distinctiveness of faith in God
the Creator.
Reduced to a theistic doctrine of the origin of the world, however, belief in the
Creator remained simple and easy and axiomatic only as long as science was unable to
offer any plausible rival theory of the origin of the world on its own. The moment de
Laplace was able to say to Napoleon: “I have no need of that hypothesis, Sire!” a far-
reaching change began. The Creator God had been driven out of his first “gap”. He
thereby became “the god of the gaps”, and one after the other the “gaps” were filled
in by science, from the origin of the world down to the origin of life itself. The
“automatic organization of matter” may still be disputed as to the details, yet even
this last of the gaps, which the theologians still reserved for the Creator in the sense of
“neo-vitalism” as recently as Karl Heim only thirty years ago, has finally been
occupied by biochemistry — with whatever variations in detail.
Yet this very reduction of belief in the Creator to a doctrine of the origin of the
world, to that with which this belief had only been combined, i.e. to the elements of a
world-view from which it was possible and necessary to detach it, transformed the
doctrine of the Creator, in the course of the nineteenth and twentieth centuries, from
the simplest of doctrines into the most difficult and problematic, a doctrine which
divided, not the confessions from one another, but certainly the church from the
world. Belief in the Creator was the one doctrine which the modern world-view could
least accept. Contradiction of faith in God the Creator reached its peak in the shape
of Darwin’s theory of evolution and, in particular, in the shape of the ideological
absolutization of the doctrine of evolution in Germany by Ernst Haeckel at the turn
of the century. Between the faith confessed by Christians and the modern scientific
view of reality, belief in the world as God’s handiwork ceased to be the area of
greatest common ground and became instead the greatest factor of division . . .
About fifteen years or so ago, it became a matter of extreme urgency to speak once
more not only of the Creator but also of his creation. For God’s handiwork was being
endangered and put in growing jeopardy by the exploitation of nature, by the
pollution, contamination and destruction of the environment. It was inevitable that
the doctrine of the Creator and his creation should move once more into the centre of
witness and reflection. For the first time since it was first formulated sixteen centuries
ago as an anti-Gnostic confession of faith, this doctrine is seen to be needed again
today in all its richness, scope and complexity; no longer as something obvious and
simple but as something challenging and difficult. Today, however, the issue is not so
much whether the Creator in whom we believe is the Father of Jesus or on the
contrary a demiurge. That is no longer the problem today. Nor is our problem today
what it was a hundred or even just fifty years ago — namely whether there is any
Creator God at all.
The issue today, rather, is the world as God’s creation ; the need to protect, preserve
and rescue it. But it is possible to establish this obligation to protect, preserve and
rescue the creation only if the environment to be protected and the natural world to
be preserved can be confessed in faith as really God’s handiwork. This, however, as we
have seen, is precisely the question which the theology of creation has been the least
concerned with in the last century and a half, when its attention has been focused
primarily on God’s word in Jesus Christ, on the human being as creature, and on
human cooperation in the work of creation with a view to humanity’s liberation.
These were and remain vitally important aspects of the doctrine of creation to
which too little attention had previously been paid and which were discovered or
rediscovered in the theology of our century. But too little attention was paid to the
created world itself, along with God and Christ as Creator, along with the human
being as creature and co-creator. This has to be made good today. Important
Aspects of an Ecumenical Approach to the First Article 43
contributions to making it good have been forthcoming in the past two decades from,
above all, the American process theology associated with Alfred N. Whitehead, as
well as from the Anglican sacramental theology of nature and evolution associated
with William Temple. A first comprehensive and particularly outstanding contribu-
tion to this effort to find a new way of making God’s handiwork, too, once again the
theme of faith in the Creator has just appeared. Very significantly, the title o { Jurgen
Moltmann’s recent “ecological doctrine of creation” is “ Godin the creation”. But first
we must consider briefly the theme: the Creator above the creation.
2. The Kinshasa text
Even though, during the ecumenical session at Kinshasa, the problem posed by
contemporary atheism to the Christian faith was not the subject of any in-depth
reflection, its importance as a topic was underlined by the fact that it is mentioned
in the first paragraph of the final text. This text states explicitly that atheism may
manifest itself in many ways and that it could also be a challenge to believers to
purify their notion of God.
There are atheists in the sense of those who consider that belief in God, far from
being the way of life and salvation, is rather a threat to the freedom and dignity of
humankind; belief in God would rather be an illusion springing from psychological,
sociological or economic grounds. In the early centuries, Christians were accused of
atheism because they abandoned the pagan gods. Contemporary atheism may today
be challenging believers to purify their notion of God.
In face of the problems of existence in our world, some people are unable to find
any transcendent or ultimate reference in life. Some of these place their hope for
betterment in humankind itself. Others have abandoned the quest in a nihilistic way.
(A.I, 1)
3. The subsequent revisions
a) To the discussion of atheism the revised text of Geneva contributes a few
changes in externals only; not in the first paragraph, since that begins with the
affirmation of the Christian faith in the one God, but in a commentary at the end
of the second paragraph. This commentary accords a separate place to the
statement in the Kinshasa text that the Christians of the first few centuries were
accused of atheism because they had abandoned the heathen gods and refused to
practise religious syncretism.
b) The revised text of Cret-Berard keeps the commentary on atheism of the
preceding draft, but places it at the end of a different paragraph (No. 3), while the
second paragraph is devoted mainly to doubt as opposed to the faith discussed in
the first paragraph:
Christians believe that “the One true God”, who made himself known to Israel, has
revealed himself supremely in the “One whom he has sent”, namely Jesus Christ
(John 17:3); that, in Christ, God has reconciled the world to himself (2 Cor. 5:19);
and that, by his Holy Spirit, God brings new and eternal life to all who through Christ
put their trust in him.
Many people and religions other than Christianity profess faith in a single,
universal god who is creator, redeemer and sustainer of everything. Others doubt
whether there is any reality transcending the visible world, providing the source of its
being and continuing life: for them a conception of God is no more than an
expression and projection of human wishes and fears. Even when it is acknowledged
that there are powers transcending the visible reality of the world the question is, can
44 One God, One Lord, One Spirit
it be maintained that there is only one such power and should that power be
conceived as purely transcendent or also as immanent in the world and how can these
aspects be reconciled? (I.A, 1 and 2)
However, what particularly distinguishes the revision made at Cret-Berard is the
fact that reflections on the faith-atheism problem have been developed in two new
paragraphs, 8 and 9. In this approach, the existence of God is presented as that
which gives ultimate meaning to the whole of finite existence, and as the source of
responsibility and hope in the world. Moreover, the text affirms that human nature
is “inescapably religious”:
The world of finite things would lack ultimate meaning and purpose without the
divine reality. Christians share with many other religions the belief that there is a
God. Indeed, the very existence of anything finite remains an unresolved mystery
without it. God is the source of obligation in a world where otherwise there would be
no ultimately obliging reality as a criterion of individual behaviour. God is the source
of hope in the face of perishableness, suffering, failure and strife, a hope surpassing
everything that could be achieved by human efforts, but also inspiring efforts at
creating a provisional state of order and human dignity.
While the religious traditions of humankind are indeed all testimonies of human
experience and thought, they support the fact that human nature is inescapably
religious. Religions are not necessarily inventions of being whose primordial nature
could adequately be described in purely secular terms as atheists assume. If the
religious dimension belongs to the roots of the distinctively human predicament, then
the fullness of being human is missed where the awareness of a reality transcending
everything finite is obscured or extinguished rather than being attended to and sought
after as source of possible answers and solutions to the promises, inadequacies and
perversions of human life. (I.A, 8 and 9)
4. The Stavanger discussion
With respect to the problem posed by atheism to faith, the discussion group at
Stavanger which analyzed and discussed the ecumenical work on the first article of
the Creed was not satisfied with the treatment of the question of atheism in the
commentary on paragraph 3 and in paragraphs 8 and 9. The same group
recommended deeper study of the subject and even proposed the holding of a
special consultation on it:
The group feels that the treatment of atheism in paragraph 3 (Commentary) and in
paragraphs 8 and 9 is not adequate. For one thing, atheism in the modern world
assumes a variety of forms which require different types of response. The various
forms of atheism are among the most serious challenges facing Christian faith today.
We recommend that the challenge of atheism be mentioned in paragraph 2 and that
there be a new section on “The Challenge of Atheism”, probably after the present
paragraph 15. We also suggest that the drafting of this new section be entrusted to a
special consultation on the question of atheism.
In particular the Stavanger discussion group made the point that there is a need
for clarification and deeper exploration of the statement that human nature is
inescapably religious. “The statement that human nature is inescapably religious
requires clarification. Is this true, either as an empirical or a theological statement?
The question whether one can be truly human without being religious needs
further exploration.”
Aspects of an Ecumenical Approach to the First Article 45
The Stavanger discussion group also recommended the introduction into the
text of a special paragraph on secularism.
5. The Berlin I Potsdam text
This text stands out because of its exploration of the faith-atheism question, and
takes into consideration the suggestions made at Stavanger. In paragraph 6 it is
stated that faith in a creator God is confronted primarily by the “false gods”
created by absolutized selfish human passions, and subsequently by doubt and
denial of the existence of the one God. In paragraph 22, the Potsdam text returns
to the description of the forms of contemporary atheism, and retains the affirm-
ation of the previous texts that atheism also challenges believers to purify their
notion of God.
Taking into account the criticisms formulated at Stavanger concerning the text’s
presentation of the relationship between faith in the one God and atheism, the
Potsdam text, in paragraphs 24 and 25, contributed some clarifications.
Also worth mentioning here is the fact that the Berlin/Potsdam text devotes
three new paragraphs to the problems of idolatry and secularism as phenomena
opposed to faith in the true and sole Creator God.
These three paragraphs are important as an effort to explicate the importance
and meaning that faith in the one God, Creator of heaven and earth, has today.
Their content is as follows:
So it can be seen that both in individuals and in groups the notorious temptation of
idolatry is existing. It was for this reason that the Reformers spoke of the human heart
as “forging idols”. And the “production line” was not limited to the religious field. Of
course, first and foremost “idolatry” is a category belonging to the phenomenology of
religion. Nevertheless, and even in politics, one can everywhere experience the effects
of the idolatrous tendency to absolutize a phenomenon or a power of nature, history
or human civilization and to elevate it into an ultimate, or into something that gives
direction and meaning to life. Everything in the world of humanity, be it destructive
or creative, can in this way become an idol, a false god.
This is a danger also in modern secularism. Of course the biblical inheritance
contains a “demythologizing” element. A certain sober “secularization” is part of the
historical task and contribution of Christianity. Hence there should be no pre-
conceived rejection of developments towards secularization in culture and society
such as have characterized the present age in Europe. However, the fact must not be
overlooked that such trends themselves often became subject in a different way to the
old temptation towards idolatry, with the absolutizing of their ideological, political or
technocratic aims. A secularization which began as something quite legitimate has
become an illegitimate “secularism”.
It is on the basis of the Creed and in the living confession of faith in God that the
challenge of this secularism has to be faced. The warning of the prophetic and
apostolic message against this tendency towards idolatry is persistent and emphatic:
“You shall have no other gods before me” (Ex. 20: 3f.). Thus the faith in the one God
unmasks these gods as idols, illusions, destructive powers. It affirms and praises the
one God, who alone — as Father, Son and Holy Spirit — is the giver of life in this
world and the foundation of hope for the world to come. (I. A, 31-33)
It should nevertheless be made clear that the special consultation on atheism
suggested at the time of the Stavanger meeting never took place; an ecumenical
study of the problems posed by atheism to the Christian faith is therefore still
necessary.
46 One God, One Lord, One Spirit
II. The Christian faith in one God, Father, Son and Holy Spirit and the accusation of
polytheism and idolatry
Ecumenical meditation on the mystery of the unity of the church seems to be
increasingly led in the direction of the mystery of unity in God, for no worldly
model of unity can be the ultimate foundation of the unity of the church of God.
On the other hand, the fact that many Orthodox churches, members of the WCC,
have to an astonishing degree maintained and deepened their faith in the Trinitar-
ian God under extremely difficult historical conditions and in frequently hostile
environments can be explained by the fact that this faith represents the funda-
mental and irreducible dimensions of the Christian revelation, more precisely the
revelation of God as Love. For these churches, the intensification of the dialogue
with the other monotheist religions and with the scientific culture of our time
should be achieved not “in spite of faith in the Trinitarian God” but with that faith
as a starting-point. God’s call to unity as manifested by the ecumenical movement
is in effect a quiet but persistent call to a truer and deeper vision of unity.
7. From the Kinshasa addresses
As the session on the first article of the Creed took place in Africa, half of the
papers were given by Africans. Two black theologians, Elonda Efefe from Zaire
and John A.K. Aniagwu, the Roman Catholic theologian from Nigeria, thus gave
papers on Christian belief in God in the light of monotheism and polytheism.
Aniagwu discussed in particular those challenges arising for the Christian, Trini-
tarian understanding of God as a result of the encounter with traditional religions
and Islam in Africa:
The African traditional conception of God must pose some challenges for the
Christian faith in one God.
“Diffused monotheism” is how one African scholar has labelled the African
conception of God.1 Perhaps for too long, foreign investigators were led into
believing that Africans were polytheists, much like the ancient Greeks and Romans.
The fact of the case, as the said scholar sees it, is that Africans are monotheists,
polytheists and pantheists, all rolled up in one. They acknowledge one supreme God,
who is lord and maker of all things in both the spiritual and physical domains. To that
extent, they are monotheistic. But much of their cultic life is directed towards
divinities and ancestors. Then they are polytheistic. Finally, the Africans recognize
something of God (e.g. “vital force”, “soul”, “spirit”, “fiat”, etc.) residing in every
single being in both the spiritual and physical domains. There, they would be
pantheistic. Whence the use of the label “diffused monotheism” for their brand of
belief in God . . .
In the face of the current resurgence of African traditional religion within not a few
patriotic circles, the challenge must arise for Christianity to justify its faith in a God
who is both three and one, without being polytheistic or diffusely monotheistic like
that of the traditional Africans.
Also quite capable of generating some controversy is the Christian faith in a God
who is provident, interacting directly with the world he created, as against the deus
remotus et incertus of the Africans. What sense can it make to pray to God or worship
him? Is it conceivable that his will can be influenced by anything man does or does not
do?
The fact should be acknowledged of certain congruencies between the Christian
faith in God and the African traditional conception of him.
To begin with, God’s existence is accepted without question in either case. Whereas
some Christians have been known to want to demonstrate or prove God’s existence,
Africans see that as a wholly unnecessary business.
Aspects of an Ecumenical Approach to the First Article 47
As one African scholar says2 there are no atheists in African society, such that an
African (Ashanti) proverb can say: “No one shows a child the supreme Being”. That
is to say, everybody, including even the child, knows God’s existence, almost by
instinct.
In African traditional religion, as in Christianity, God is believed to be the creator
of all that exists. But the notion of God creating the world ex nihilo does not seem to
have found any place in the former as in the latter. All the known myths of the
creation of the world in Africa portray God as having fashioned the world from pre-
existing material. There is also the fact that the same myths often cast God’s creative
image as that of a moulder (Ila people) or carpenter (Tiv people). The traditional
Africans, it would seem, did not go the further step to ask where the material God
used in creation came from.
The idea of God being “personal” is not as explicit in African traditional religion as
it is in Christianity. But certain attributes given to God in the former are suggestive of
a belief in a personal God. For instance, God is portrayed as seeing, hearing, talking,
thinking, feeling, sometimes even eating and drinking. All of these attributes, put
together — especially thinking, feeling and talking — , suggest a person (or persons)
behind them . . .
The radical, uncompromising monotheism of Islam is proverbial. In its view, “True
faith (Tman) . . . consists of belief in the immaculate Divine Unity and Islam in one’s
submission to Divine Will”.3 Or else, as an Islamic scholar puts it: “The God of Islam
does not reside in several divinities. He is absolute: the repository of all that is good
and noble and sublime. Islam does not deny goodness and sublimity in others but it
does not assign divinity to them because divinity, according to Islam, must be
absolute and unadulterated with any human shortcomings or limitations. This
amounts, as if it were, to the extraction of the qualities associated by some with
divinity out of all divinities and vesting them in One Who transcends the limitations
of others considered as divine.”4 Implicit in this statement is an unequivocal rejection
of the Christian doctrines of the “Trinity” and the “incarnation” . . .
More often than not, the butt of their attack is precisely the Christian faith in a
Triune God. A standard Muslim sermon or address would thus begin as follows:
“Allah is one. He has no equal, no rival, no partner. He can have no son either, since
he has no wife to bear him a son . . .”
In this connection, as a Christian, this writer believes that there is need for a re-
examination of the Nicene formulation of the Trinitarian creed. One is here suggest-
ing that, perhaps, the formula of mia ousia, treis hypostaseis does not convey the
same meaning today as it did in the year 325 A.D. In our experience today, how much
sense can it really make to claim that there are three persons in the one nature of God,
when in every other situation that we know of, the reverse is the case: several natures
joining to form one person (for instance, body, soul, spirit in the human person)?
It is probably this difficulty that has prompted a new way of looking at the notion
of personality in God. According to this new approach, God would be said to be
“personal”, not one, two or three “persons”. In other words, whatever God may be,
he cannot be said to be person(s), since persons, in our experience, are essentially
human. To say that God is three persons would thus give the impression of suggesting
that he is three human persons. On the contrary, what is meant by saying that God is
“personal” is that he is not less than persons; he has all the attributes of persons, and
more. Whatever that “more” is, it is beyond the scope of human comprehension. All
this is stated quite clearly in the following way by a philosopher of religion: “Most
theologians speak of God as ‘personal’ rather than as a ‘Person’. The latter phrase
suggests the picture of a magnified human individual . . . The statement that God is
personal is accordingly intended to signify that God is ‘at least personal’, that
whatever God may be beyond our conceiving, he is not less than personal, not a mere
It in relation to man, but always the higher and transcendent Thou.”5
48 One God, One Lord, One Spirit
One wonders if this approach to understanding the notion of personality in God
might not open new avenues for meaningful dialogue with Islam, especially if, as was
said earlier on, both this latter and Christianity are willing to recognize the limitations
in their formulations of the truth about God.
2. The Kinshasa text
First of all, the Kinshasa text makes the point that faith in the Trinitarian God
has always been a stumbling-block for non-Christians and even in the church there
are people today who feel the need for a new interpretation:
For many people outside the Christian community, the notion of the Triune God has
been a stumbling-block. Either it threatened monotheism as they conceived it; or, in
the other direction, it excluded their own more multiple perceptions of the divine.
Even within the church, many people today consider that the Christian doctrine of the
Triune God stands in need of fresh interpretation and terminological revision. It may
be that the work of clarifying the Christian doctrine of God both for those outside the
church and for those within will best proceed hand in hand. (A. I, 3)
The Kinshasa text then explains how the Nicene Creed confesses faith in the one
God, and defines the historical context in which it was formulated (A.II, 4-7). In
paragraph 10, the Kinshasa text, under the heading “Today”, explains that the one
God of the Bible reveals himself in the history of salvation as an indivisible
communion of life and love between three separate Persons: Father, Son and Holy
Spirit. The text stresses that there is a profound link between the significance of the
cross of Christ and the comprehension of the Trinity or of the one God who is
Love.
Confronted by accusations from Islam of polytheism , or from Judaism of
idolatry , Christianity must produce a response. The Kinshasa text states that
whereas Jews, Muslims and Christians all in fact believe in one God, the revelation
of God in Christ shows how God is one: not because he is an eternal “solitude”, but
because he is an eternal communion of life and love who reveals himself to human
beings and calls them to share in him (A. IV, 14).
3. The subsequent revisions
a) The revised text of Geneva pronounces in favour of a more thorough-going
dialogue with Islam and Judaism, and quotes the example of the apologists of the
first centuries:
In the early centuries, Christians were accused of atheism because they abandoned
the pagan gods, and refused to practise religious syncretism. In this latter sense,
Christians, believing in one God, seemed to stand apart from other religions.
However, a closer look at the apologetic works of the early Christians shows that
Christian theology was not totally opposed to the theologies of other religions but
shared some common ground with them, especially with Judaism and religious
hellenistic philosophy. This early Christian attitude, echoing St Peter’s words in Acts
10:34f., is especially important today in view of the developing dialogue between
Christianity and Judaism, or Christianity and other religions, especially Islam.
(Commentary, I, A. 2)
As for the Christian response to the accusations of Islam and Judaism, the
Geneva text repeats with a few minor modifications the arguments of the Kinshasa
text.
b) The revised text of Cret-Berard responds differently to the challenges posed
by Judaism and Islam, but is chiefly distinguishable from the previous texts by its
Aspects of an Ecumenical Approach to the First Article 49
use of the idea of differentiated unity which holds together transcendence and
immanence, a unity which does not exclude plurality. However, the arguments
advanced by the Cret-Berard text, though more philosophical, mean the same
thing as the previous texts, i.e. that in God unity is expressed in the indivisible
communion of Three Persons:
The challenge posed by other monotheistic religions
Christians are sensitive to the fact that other monotheistic traditions do not share
their faith in a Triune God. Christians, indeed, are often accused either of idolatry
(Judaism) or polytheism (Islam). Although Jewish tradition knows of prophets who
act on the authority of the God who sent them, Jewish faith considers it a violation of
the oneness of God to associate any person with his eternal being. But Jewish
tradition knows of realities that represent the transcendent God within this world —
his name, his glory, his shechinah, and his tora. Do these realities which are
distinguished from God’s transcendent being really represent the presence of God
himself? In that case the distinction between transcendence and immanence would
also apply to the Jewish conception of the one God. On the other hand a transcendent
God who could not be present in this world would hardly be the God of the Old
Testament prophets. The Christian belief in the incarnation and in Jesus’ eternal
Sonship expressed in the Trinitarian Creed asserts the differentiated unity of God
encompassing transcendence and immanence.
With regard to the Islamic charge of polytheism, it is important to stress that the
Christian faith never intended to surrender the oneness of God. Nor did the
Trinitarian doctrine of the church intend to limit or to weaken the affirmation of the
unity of God. Rather, the Trinitarian differentiation of the unity of God is a condition
of a truly consistent monotheism because it does not leave the principle of plurality
outside that of unity so that unity would be a mere correlate to a plurality that were
not included in the divine life. On the contrary, only the one God who has plurality
within himself can be truly infinite and unlimited in his oneness. Only such a God can
create a multitude of creatures who nevertheless, to some degree, remain united each
within themselves as well as with others. (I, A. 16 and 17)
4. The Stavanger discussion
During the Stavanger meeting, the participants requested that particular atten-
tion be paid to the relationship between Christianity and the other monotheistic
religions, especially Judaism and Islam. At the same time, it was stated that one
must recognize there is a great diversity of opinion on the question of the
relationship between the various religions:
While we recognize why in the first article it is necessary to give special attention to
relations with Judaism and Islam (mentioned in paragraphs 3,10,16,17) we wonder if
it would be possible to consolidate this discussion.
There should be more recognition that there is considerable diversity in the way
Christians approach the question of the relation between religions.
During the discussion it was also requested that in presenting the relationship of
Christianity to the other monotheistic religions, a clear distinction should be
drawn between Judaism and Islam, for it is from the Jews that Christians inherited
their faith in the One God.
5. The Berlin/ Potsdam text
The response to the challenges of Judaism and Islam does not greatly differ from
that of the Cret-Berard text (I, A. 27, 28). However the Potsdam text takes more
50 One God , One Lord, One Spirit
specifically into consideration the challenge made to Christianity by other re-
ligions:
In other religions , e.g., African traditional religions, Buddhism or Hinduism, the
manifoldness of divinity is experienced in human beings and animals as well as in
plants and things. They challenge the Christian Trinitarian belief as being too
abstract and cut off from the realities of day-to-day life. Syncretistic movements such
as transcendental meditation gain ground in Christian countries; they function often
as compensation for the Christian Trinitarian faith which is no longer understood in
its fullness, richness and concreteness. In face of these challenges Christians believe
that the concreteness of the one God is no other than in the work of the Father, the
Son and the Holy Spirit: the Father is the creator of every person, animal, plant or
thing that exists; the Son reveals the meaning and healing of the Father’s creation;
and the Spirit brings divine life into every detail of heaven and earth. (I, A. 29)
Present-day ecumenical thought is very positive in its insistence that unity in
God is identical to the perfect and indivisible communion between the Father, Son
and Holy Spirit. It is this unity — reciprocal communion of life and love — and not
an arithmetical or abstract unity, that the faith of the church confesses and
glorifies. And the fact that it is God the Father who is the source of this unity of
communion shows that it is not a constraining, but a free unity. It is realized in the
free gift of self between the Persons of the Trinity.
III. Faith in God the Father in the present age of feminist theology
Feminist theology is one of the important components of modern theological
thought, especially in regions such as Western Europe and North America. Behind
the disparate tendencies and uneven modes of expression manifested in contem-
porary feminist theology (or theologies), one can discern a genuine and legitimate
aspiration towards a renewed and more authentic ecclesial koinonia based on the
participation of all members and the recognition and exploitation of charismata
which are frequently ignored. Because a patriarchal attitude and terminology have
too often imbued the traditional Christian theology of all the churches, there is a
current feminist reaction which goes so far as to query whether the designation
God the Father may be in fact one manifestation of this patriarchalism. A
constructive ecumenical study of this subject is necessary, in order to avoid the risk
of over-hasty compressions and simplifications.
1. From the Kinshasa addresses
It comes as no surprise that at Kinshasa women had their say on questions
raised by feminist theology about the traditional way in which God is confessed
and understood. Mercy Oduyoye, the Nigerian Methodist, could not take part in
the session herself, but let the participants have her contribution in writing. Its title
is at the same time an outline of her programme: “We believe in one God: towards
a non-patriarchalist understanding of God as Father”.1 * * * * 6 In her contribution the
vice-moderator of the Commission on Faith and Order, the Anglican Mary
Tanner from London, spoke first about the fatherhood of God against an Old
Testament background, before going on to deal with some feminist points of view:
The Christian feminist challenges to the fatherhood of God have then to be seen as
part of a much larger package, an interlocking agenda which touches our under-
standing of God, of women and men in God’s image and the life and structures of the
churches. To the question, is God really father, are the masculine attributes that
Aspects of an Ecumenical Approach to the First Article 51
belong with fatherhood, power, lordship, kingship, mastery, any longer usable, not
surprisingly feminists come up with different answers . . .
The majority of feminists, however, seek to overcome the patriarchal view of God
in other ways. They cannot relinquish the concept of “God as Father” for it has been
given to us in Jesus’ own address to God and in his invitation to us to pray “Our
Father”. More than this through baptism we are incorporated into Christ, and are
able to call God “Father” in, with and through Christ. Nevertheless, for Christian
feminists it is vital to explode the myth that this fatherhood of God either takes its
pattern from the pattern of human fatherhood as that has been perceived in any
particular age or culture and also to explode the myth that to call God “Father” is to
attribute to God maleness and biological fatherhood. The Kottayam report has
already said it: “It is important to note when we speak of ‘Father and Son’ in their
relationship to each other in the Trinity, we do not mean to imply that God is male.
As a human being, Jesus Christ is male. But within the persons of the Trinity there is
no gender.” This may seem too naive an assertion to make in an explication of the
creed today and yet many of the letters to the British press last year, when the Church
of Scotland was debating the motherhood of God, revealed that in fact many do cling
to the idea that God is male and that he exhibits primarily characteristics we have
defined as masculine.
How then do feminists correct this one-sided view of God?
1. One way is to recover and lift up the silent, hidden part of the Christian
Tradition, already there within the Old Testament and New Testament, and to find a
feminine face of God. We have already referred to the Old Testament passages where a
number of experiences which have been called feminine and wrongfully restricted to
women are confidently used of God. Such thoughts continued in the church in
Clement of Alexandria in the third century:
God is love
And for love of us has become a woman
The ineffable being of the Father has out of
compassion with us become Mother.
By loving the Father has become woman.
And it echoes most strongly in the beautiful writings of the mediaeval mystics.
Mother Julian is one of the great discoveries of Christian feminists:
As truly as God is our Father, so just as truly
is he our Mother.
In our Father, God Almighty, we have our being;
in our merciful Mother we are remade and restored.
It is the uncovering of this silent tradition, hardly ever heard in the official worship of
the churches, that restores a balance for women to a God with whom they have found
it difficult to identify. This provides us with a courage to talk out of our experience
about God and to form our words and our prayers. The tradition of a feminine face to
God is there, silent, yes, but constant. It offers a rich corrective source.
2. But Christian feminists do not only ask the churches to complement the male-
masculine language of God with female-feminine language. The most exciting devel-
opment to me is that some feminist theologians, for example Rosemary Haughton,
Patricia Wilson-Kastner, along with the Moltmanns are grappling with the content of
God the Father and Jesus as Son and indeed with the doctrine of the Trinity. There is
an attempt to “zero-content” the notions of Father and Son , so that they may be “filled
out” again, not by a false patriarchy of the first century or seventh century or the
Victorian era, nor even with our more enlightened twentieth century concepts of
fatherhood, but filled out in faithfulness to God’s revelation within the scriptures. If
we concentrate on the notion of uniqueness in relation between Jesus and the Father,
we see that the fatherhood of God, the Sonship of that Father, is so dramatically
52 One God, One Lord, One Spirit
different from that culture-bond tradition imposed upon them. The fatherhood of
God is grasped most fully in relation to the centrality of the cross. The Father of Jesus
is known as Father when he surrenders the Son to the cross. The Son knows what it is
to be Son, when in complete obedience and conformity of will with the Father, he
embraces the suffering of the cross. At the moment when Jesus surrendered in
Gethsemane, and on the cross God gives proof of a radical difference from the all
powerful, impassible God. At the moment when the Son suffers the abandonment of
the Father, the Father suffers the abandoning of the Son, God gives up his pre-
rogatives. Here the essence of fatherhood is quite other than what by comparison is
seen as the poverty-stricken parody produced by patriarchy. This leads in the
direction of what Moltmann and Rosemary Haughton call the “motherly Father”:
we begin to see that the title “God the Father” expresses a very different God from the
God of much of the Christian past. It is precisely this God that many Christian
feminists are searching for out of the depths of their experience as they reach out for
the motherhood of God.
3. And finally, another important development for Christian feminism comes in
the understanding of the Trinity. It is emerging clearly in feminist theology that the
notion of the Trinity is far more supportive of feminist values. In Western tradition
the Trinity has been viewed primarily in a monarchical way, with the Father as the
source, the dominant one, who begot the Son eternally, and the Spirit proceeding
from the Father (and the Son). God is Father and head of a divine household: his
omnipotence, omniscience, absoluteness merely strengthened the patriarchal image.
But in the East , the notion basic to the understanding of the Trinity is of God as
relational. The three persons of the Trinity are part of what Moltmann calls “a social
network”; the Trinity is “a social Trinity”.7 Each person is perfectly open to the other
and interdependent. By virtue of their eternal love they live in one another to such an
extent and dwell in one another to such an extent, they are one. This relational
concept of the Trinity has a profound effect upon our understanding of the father-
hood of God. The Trinity is based on love and not lordship, on. mutuality and not
domination, on common life and not hierarchy. This is very close indeed to the
feminine perception of things. It “chimes” with women’s experience, with their
interest in equality, nurture and mutual support.
It is from this bringing together of experience with scripture and Tradition that the
challenges of Christian feminism to the fatherhood of God spring. It is this which
gives women confidence to write their own prayers and poems, even their own creeds.
As one Roman Catholic nun says: “My secret worship of God the Mother has been
the sure ground of my spirituality.” This gives her confidence to write her own
spiritual meditations:
We worship God our mother in solitude, seeking the secret places to be with her . . .
Everything in the garden magnifies her presence . . .
Everything pours from her source.
Everything participates in her being.
Everything is holy . . .
Searching for our Mother we run through trees,
lifting stones, kneeling at every pool and hollow,
looking into every cleft and beneath birds’ wings.
Final reflections
1. The accusation that the church’s language about God has been oppressively
patriarchal needs to be taken seriously. Language functions within the community of
faith. If some members find the language oppressive we cannot turn our backs on
them. Religious language must nurture and sustain all of us.
2. We may not surrender the centrality of God the Father, Jesus the Son and the
Holy and Undivided Trinity.
Aspects of an Ecumenical Approach to the First Article 53
3. But we must understand the fatherhood of God through the unique relation of
the Father to the Son, Jesus.
4. We need to recover the silent part of our tradition concerning the motherhood
of God and the feminine face of God.
5. This will enable us to supplement the credal statement of belief in God the
Father with images of the motherhood of God. At the level of necessary anthropol-
ogy the masculine language about God should be balanced with feminine language,
for God encompasses and transcends all that we understand by masculine and
feminine.
6. My final reflection is in the form of a question. While not changing the words of
the ancient creeds may we not also go on to address God as Mother: to say with
Anselm, “Christ, my Mother, You gather your chicken with your wings” or with
Julian of Norwich:
As truly as God is our Father,
so just as truly is he our Mother.
In our Father, God Almighty, we have our being;
in our merciful Mother we are remade and restored.
It is I, the strength and goodness of fatherhood.
It is I, the wisdom of motherhood.
It is I, the light and grace of holy love . . .
It is I who am the reward of all true desiring . . .
2. The Kinshasa text
The group who prepared the Kinshasa report thought deeply about the original
meaning of the expression in the Creed “the Father Almighty”, and arrived at the
conclusion that this is the key expression for understanding the other articles of the
Creed, and especially the fact that the confession of faith in “the one God” cannot
refer to the Father in isolation, but to the Father in indivisible unity with the Son
whom he begets and the Holy Spirit which proceeds from him. It is this Father, the
source of the Trinitarian communion of eternal life, who is the Father Almighty,
creator of heaven and earth (cf. B.I, 1 and 2).
The text next specifies the dangers implied in a faulty understanding of the
expression “the Father Almighty”. At the same time the group proposes to
respond to certain challenges encountered by those who today confess faith in God
the Father Almighty.
The specifically Christian sense of the first article may be lost from view; one-
sidedly authoritarian, paternalistic and triumphalistic associations may consciously
or unconsciously colour its interpretation; these in turn may call forth protests and
objections, issuing sometimes in rejection of the entire Christian faith. Such objec-
tions have indeed been directed against both “Father” and “Almighty” as suitable
descriptions of God. They challenge us today to consider such questions as:
— Can the fatherhood of God properly be understood in a non-patriarchal and non-
authoritarian way?
— Does “feminine” as well as “masculine” imagery have a necessary place in
inclusive theological language? And, if so, can we go on to address God as “Our
Mother” as well as “Our Father”?
— In what sense do we affirm that God is the Father “Almighty”?
— What is the relation or resemblance between the sovereign power of God and the
“powers” at work in the world?
— What are the similarities and differences between the Christian affirmation of the
Father Almighty and comparable expressions used in other religions? (B.I, 3)
54 One God, One Lord, One Spirit
In its response to these challenges, the group first explains the historical context
in which the Creed was formulated, or in other words the challenges which the
fathers of the Council of Nicea had to face in their day (B.a.II, 4-7). The text then
states that the eternal begetting of the Son by the Father is not identical with the
biological father-son relationship in terms of the created human being. For this
reason the eternal begetting of the Son by the Father confessed in the Creed was
never meant to imply that the Father is male (B.a.II, 8).
The text insists on the fact that the true fatherhood of God is demonstrated in his
relationship with his eternal Son become Man, given for the salvation of the world
(John 3:16) (B.a.II, 9). A searching analysis of the description provided by the
Gospels of the Father-Son relationship in the Holy Trinity shows that the divine
fatherhood revealed in the New Testament has nothing to do with the image of a
monarchical, authoritarian, power-hungry father.
As to whether God the Father may be considered also as a Mother , the Kinshasa
group found first of all that the fatherhood of God in the Old Testament is shown
in his love for the people of Israel, as their liberator and redeemer. On the other
hand, there are in fact many expressions in the New Testament describing the
relationship of God with his people in images of maternal affection. No-one,
however, ever addresses the Lord as “Mother” (B.a.III, 12 and 13).
However, the group observes that the New Testament is distinguished from the
Old Testament precisely in the revelation of God’s fatherhood through his unique
relationship with Jesus Christ, his eternal Son become Man (cf. B.a.III, 14). The
extreme intimacy of the relationship of the Son of God become Man with his
heavenly Father is expressed in the designation “Abba”, and this intimacy consti-
tutes the foundation upon which is for ever based that intimacy and familiarity
which human beings who believe in the Son may have with the Father. Jesus’
quality of being eternally the only Son of the Father is not communicated to other
persons, but the intimacy of love involved in this quality is shared by the incarnate
Son with all humanity and offered by him to all human beings who open
themselves to him (B.a.III, 15).
On the basis of these findings, with the Bible and the Creed as starting-point
and taking into consideration the present-day challenges mentioned above, the
Kinshasa group concludes that the true fatherhood of God as shown in scripture
and in the faith of the church cannot intrinsically be reduced to categories like
masculinity or femininity.
Nevertheless, without wishing to “correct” the revelation and words of Christ,
and without turning Tradition into something abstract or forgetting the disagree-
ment within the group itself over the question whether one may address God as
“Our Mother”, the group thinks it necessary that in the description of the
relationship of God with humanity there should be an attempt to “recover a
feminine face of God”:
While not wishing to surrender the confession of faith in God the Father, nor the
address given by Jesus to his disciples, “Our Father”, we recognize a need to uncover
the silent but complementary part of the tradition of a feminine face of God. Further
we believe that Christians are free to explore language, symbols and imagery which
celebrate the feminine in God. It is this God who encompasses and transcends
male and female, masculine and feminine, who liberates both men and women
from the false stereotypes of masculine and feminine which have entrapped us
all. (B.a.IV, 19)
Aspects of an Ecumenical Approach to the First Article 55
3. The subsequent revisions
a) The revised text of Geneva is chiefly distinguishable from that of Kinshasa for
its combination of the two chapters “God the Father” and “the Almighty” of the
Kinshasa text into a single chapter, “the Father Almighty”. Flere is an excerpt:
The close association of Creator and Almighty with Father in the opening state-
ment of the Creed tended to underline the idea that dominion and authority belong to
the fatherhood of God. The Father God is the one who rules and wields authority
over all creation, “the Almighty”. The Greek term used here in the Creed is
Pantokrator, literally, “the one who holds and governs all things”. It does not mean,
in an abstract way, “one who can do anything he wants”, but rather “one in whose
hands all things are”. It is less a description of absolute omnipotence than of universal
providence. To call the Father Pantokrator is to affirm that the whole universe is in his
grasp, that he does not and will not let it go. At the same time, the affirmation that the
Father is also Pantokrator brought with it (at least in principle) the de-throning of all
other claimants to universal sovereignty, to government and mastery over the world
and its history and destiny (I, B.4).
b) The revised text of Cret-Berard is to a great extent an abbreviation of the
Geneva text. However, the Cret-Berard text puts more emphasis on the fact that in
the language of Jesus (especially the writings of St John), “Father” is a name and
not just an image or one designation among others.
The Cret-Berard text explains the image of the divine fatherhood in these terms,
and retains in its final commentary the suggestion of “recovering a feminine face of
God”.
The image of fatherhood
When God is called the Father in the Bible, in Jesus’ own teaching and in the
Christian church, it was never intended to imply that God is male. Although the
Trinitarian doctrine used the biological metaphor of begetting in its description of
the eternal relationship between the Father and the Son, it is the relation of origin that
is focused upon. In the biblical language God’s fatherhood transcends the sexual
distinction between male and female which had been part of the polytheistic concep-
tions of gods and goddesses in Israel’s cultural surroundings. God’s fatherhood
includes functions and attributes which belong to both men and women but which all
too often in Western culture have been limited to women and called “feminine”. In
speaking of God the Father, the point of comparison is in the function of the father in
the family, who cares for and nurtures all his children, the one who is concerned for
the weak, the oppressed and the most vulnerable of his children. These parental
functions include aspects of motherly care as well. God loves and shares all that he
has, but he is also judging all attitudes and structures of oppression, domination and
neglect in the church and in the world. To confess God as the Father is to
acknowledge a wholeness in God which we are called to reflect in ourselves, in our
relationships with each other, in the life and structures of our society and not least in a
renewed community of women and men in the church.
“Father” as a name
In Jesus’ language about God “Father” is not only an image, it is primarily the
name of the God to whom he relates in his mission and whose kingdom he proclaims.
It is the name used to address God in prayer. In its function as a name, the name of
God in Jesus’ own teaching and prayer, the word “Father” cannot be replaced by
another one. It would no longer be the God of Jesus to whom we relate, if we would
avoid the name Jesus himself used.
56 One God , One Lord, One Spirit
Commentary
While belief in “God the Father the Almighty” is a given part of the Christian
tradition there is a need to recover a feminine face of God. However, there is no
agreement as to whether God may also be addressed as “our Mother”. In this
discussion the distinction between image and name is important. While so-called
“feminine” images illustrate the tenderness of God’s love along with the image of
fatherhood, it is a matter of Christian identity to continue to use the name that Jesus
used in addressing God as he commanded his disciples to do. (I, B.32 and 33)
4. The Stavanger discussion
During the Stavanger meeting there were participants in the discussion group
who took those who had prepared the previous texts to task for not having taken
sufficient notice of the “Memorandum of the Working Group on the Community
of Women and Men in the Church”, drawn up at the session of the Faith and
Order Commission, Lima 1982. This Memorandum had enquired:
How far are the terms Father, Son and Holy Ghost/Spirit, which safeguard the
distinctiveness of persons, still adequate today to describe the Trinity? How far
should the contention of many women that this language excludes them from the
community of the body of Christ be taken seriously and lead us towards discussing
new terms for confessing our belief in the Holy Trinity?8
On this subject the rapporteur of this discussion, Hans-Georg Link, justly
remarked: “Without any doubt, a long process of interpretation still lies before us
here. It is to be hoped that women will be more fully involved in this demanding
and laborious work.”9
5. The Berlin/ Potsdam text
This text follows the broad lines of the previous texts both for the historical and
biblical approach to the faith confessed in the Creed, and for the explication of the
fatherhood of God and his omnipotence today. While trying to be responsive to
certain challenges posed by modern feminist theology and to conserve in the text
the recommendation of “recovering a feminine face of God”, the group who
prepared the Potsdam report stressed that the fact of addressing God by the
designation “Father”, as Jesus instructed his disciples to do, makes the Christian
identity what it is (cf. I, B. 48-50). Summarizing, the explication states:
In the first article of the Creed the identity of the one God is confessed first in terms
of the Father. The one God is Father. To call God Father is the basis of all that is said
about the one God. The Father is source of all divinity; the second article confesses
further how this Father is the Father of the unique Son and finally the third article
states that this Father is the one from whom the Holy Spirit proceeds. The fatherhood
of God has to be understood in connection with the unique Son and the Holy Spirit.
(I, B.47)
By way of conclusion, it may be said that ecumenical reflection on the apostolic
faith is becoming today more and more essential, not only for the theological
renewal of various churches but also for the dialogue Christians should hold with
other religions.
However, a theological and spiritual deepening of the apostolic faith expressed
by the Creed also contributes to a deeper understanding of what constitutes the
church’s true unity, which has its source and supreme model in the unity of
communion of the Living God: the Holy Trinity.
Aspects of an Ecumenical Approach to the First Article 51
In other words, common ecumenical reflection on the apostolic faith should help
us to realize how profoundly the content of the truth of the faith is linked with
what the material life of the churches and of each church member means at its
deepest.
NOTES
1. E. Bolaji Idowu, African Traditional Religion , London, 1973, p. 1 35.
2. John S. Mbiti, African Traditional Religion , London, 1975, p.29.
3. Art. “Islam”, in Encyclopedia Britannica 9, 1980, p.912.
4. I.H. Qureshi, “Muslim Art”, in God and Man in Contemporary Islamic Thought ,
Ch. Malik ed., Beirut, 1972, p.l 15.
5. John H. Hick, Philosophy of Religion , Englewood Cliffs, 19732, p.10.
6. Faith and Order mimeographed paper FO/85:16, March 1985.
7. Cf. inter alia , J. Moltmann, “Ich glaube an Gott den Vater. Patriarchalische oder nicht-
patriarchalische Rede vor Gott?”, Ev. Theol., 43, 1983, pp. 397ff.
8. “Towards Visible Unity”, Vol. II, M. Kinnamon ed., Faith and Order Paper No. 113 ,
Geneva, WCC, 1982, p.48.
9. “Faith and Renewal. Commission on Faith and Order, Stavanger 1985”, T. F. Best ed.,
Faith and Order Paper No. 131, Geneva, WCC, 1986, p. 1 36.
■
PART II
The Second Article
We Believe in One Lord Jesus Christ
An Ecumenical Explication
Report of a Faith and Order Consultation
held at Kottayam, India, 14-22 November 1984*
A. Jesus Christ — True God and True Human Being
I. The theme
II. The Creed
1. Of one being with the Father
2. For our salvation he became incarnate
3. Towards Christological convergence
III. The biblical witness
1. The Son of God
a) The unique relationship between Jesus and his heavenly
Father (Synoptics)
b) The divine authority in the public ministry of Jesus (Synoptics)
c) The eternal word of God (John)
d) The self-giving love unto death (Paul)
e) The stamp of God’s very being (Hebrews)
2. The humanity of Jesus of Nazareth
a) Sharing in the human condition (Synoptics)
b) The sending of the Son into the world (John)
c) The other Adam (Paul)
d) The learning of obedience through suffering (Hebrews)
IV. Jesus Christ: True God and True Human Being for us today
1 . Contemporary experiences
a) Concerning Jesus of Nazareth
b) Concerning God
c) Concerning our human being
2. True God — for us today
a) The God of Jesus
b) Challenges to us from Christ’s divinity
* The introduction has been omitted.
62 One God, One Lord, One Spirit
3. True Human Being — for us today
a) The image of true humanity
b) Challenges to us from Christ’s humanity
B. Jesus Christ — suffered and crucified for our sake
I. The theme
II. The Creed
III. The biblical witness
IV. Christ’s suffering and death for us
C. Jesus Christ — his rule today and tomorrow
I. The theme
II. The Creed
1 . The Lord who is and who is to come
2. The spring of joy and hope
III. The biblical witness and later interpretations
1 . The relation between resurrection, ascension and Christ’s rule
2. The interpretation of the resurrection
IV. The Risen Christ — today and tomorrow
1 . Christ’s rule today
2. Christ’s rule tomorrow
A. JESUS CHRIST — TRUE GOD AND TRUE HUMAN BEING
I. The theme
1 . The church is a community confessing, worshipping and serving Jesus Christ
as Lord. This confession includes many dimensions of our belief and life: we
proclaim that by the life, death and resurrection of Jesus, we are made citizens of a
new world, God’s kingdom; that we are set free from the tyranny of a past marked
by guilt, violence and brought together by the victory of Jesus over all the powers
enslaving the world; and that we are given the freedom and authority to call the
God of Jesus our Father and to depend totally on his compassionate faithfulness.
Thus the church confesses Jesus Christ as the image of the one true God, whom he
called his Father. At the same time he is confessed as the image of true human
being for whose salvation he became incarnate.
Since 1910, the ecumenical movement has rested on the basis of a confession of
Jesus Christ as God and Saviour as it is explicitly expressed in the Basis of the
World Council of Churches. But at a time when the nature both of God and of
salvation is much in question inside and outside the churches, there is a pressing
need to explore for our day that faith which found classical expression in the
accounts of Jesus Christ as embodying a divine life “of one being with the Father”
as well as a human individuality, “complete in all things belonging to us human
beings” (Athanasius).
We Believe in One Lord Jesus Christ 63
II. The Creed
We believe in one Lord, Jesus Christ,
the only Son of God,
eternally begotten of the Father,
Light from Light,
true God from true God,
begotten, not made,
of one Being with the Father.
Through Him all things were made.
For us and for our salvation
He came down from Heaven:
by the power of the Holy Spirit
He became incarnate from the Virgin Mary
and was made man.
2. It is no accident that the second article forms the longest section of our Creed.
In it is expressed the very heart of Christian belief and indeed of Christian identity.
It elaborates what is involved in the simple act of Christian commitment to Jesus
and to the Father of Jesus.
Its detailed formulations about Christ as incarnate Son of God have to be
understood in the context of the fourth century’s theological debates. The theo-
logical crisis of the fourth century was not strictly speaking about “the incar-
nation”. All parties agreed that Jesus was not exhaustively to be described or
understood as a human being; what was at issue was the nature of what became
incarnate.
Arius had claimed that God’s complete freedom and transcendence could only
be asserted if it was stressed that God was the only eternal, self-sufficient being; he
needs nothing other than himself, and has no natural relation to anything other
than himself. Thus, although God may choose to become Father, and so choose to
bring into being a Son, this relationship is not part of what it is to be God.
1 . Of one being with the Father
3. The second article of the Creed affirms the Lord Jesus Christ to be “the only
Son of God”. The phrases “Light from Light”, “true God from true God” which
follow this represent credal formulae, already in existence, clarifying this Sonship.
All are of interest and significance, but the central — and originally most contro-
versial— expression is the homoousion — “of one being with the Father”.
This phrase was introduced by the first Ecumenical Council at Nicea in 325 as a
safeguard against the view of Arius and his supporters. Against this, the Council
affirmed that the relation of God as Father to the Son or word manifested in Jesus
was a relation intrinsic and necessary to the divine being. God is not God in any
other way but as Father and Son together in relationship, in a perfect mutual
loving and giving and a perfect harmony of act and will.
Jesus Christ embodies for us the totality of a love responding to the gift of love,
and so embodies the unique relationship between the eternal Son and the eternal
Father. This free self-giving by which Jesus realizes in human history the life of
God is the destiny to which we as human beings are called. And as Jesus in his self-
giving receives full authority from the Father for the realization of his kingdom in
healing, judgment and mercy, so we in him are enabled to realize this divine life
and action in the world.
64 One God, One Lord, One Spirit
2. For our salvation he became incarnate
4. The second article of the Creed affirms also that the Only Son of God, who is
of the same being with the Father, came down from heaven. He became incarnate
for us and for our salvation from the Virgin Mary by the power of the Holy Spirit,
and was made a human being. The Creed confesses that the Son who is eternally of
the same being with the eternal Father became in time, by incarnation, of the same
being with us mortals.
The fathers have explicated the mystery of the incarnation by the affirmation
that it was realized in Jesus by the hypostatic union of God the Son with the
humanity which He assumed. By this they meant that God the Son and the
humanity were so united in Jesus that the union was perfect and real, neither the
divine nor the human being confused with, or divided from, the other.
God the Son became really a human being. He shared fully all human conditions
within the historical realm, never being led into sin that alienates us from God,
though he was tempted as we human beings are. He underwent all human
experiences of joy and sorrow, fellowship and privation, all the time being in
himself fully composed and leading others to human fullness and divine glory.
Through his humanity that is united with his divinity he elevates all those who
believe in him to a divine life. By living in the world under its limitations, sufferings
and conflicts, he showed us the way to a life of courage and strength, in the midst of
the many vicissitudes that confront us every day.
The faith affirmed in the Creed shows us a soteriological perspective and the goal
towards which we should move in our life on earth. Our life today is often
unhealthy and unedifying as much to us as to others, so that we need to undergo a
drastic change. In Jesus we have the model on which to pattern our lives and come
to our real nature. Thus Jesus challenges all misguided life and aspirations of the
world, demanding every human being to take up his way and move towards our
final fulfilment and glory in him, through him and with him.
3. Towards Christological convergence
5. As a sign of our growing convergence in understanding Jesus Christ as
true God and true Human Being we refer finally to two agreed statements on
Christology from earlier times. Already in 1967, representatives of the Oriental and
the Eastern Orthodox Churches agreed in Bristol on the following statement:
God’s infinite love for mankind, by which He has both created and saved us, is our
starting point for apprehending the mystery of the union of perfect Godhead and
perfect manhood in our Lord Jesus Christ. It is for our salvation that God the word
became one of us. Thus He who is consubstantial with the Father became by the
incarnation consubstantial also with us. By his infinite grace God has called us to
attain to his uncreated glory. God became by nature man that man may become by
grace God. The manhood of Christ thus reveals and realizes the true vocation of man.
God draws us into fullness of communion with himself in the body of Christ, that we
may be transfigured from glory to glory. It is in this soteriological perspective that we
have approached the Christological question.1
On 23 June 1984, Pope John Paul II and the Syrian Orthodox Patriarch of
Antioch, His Holiness Moran Mar Ignatius Zakka I Iwas, signed in Rome a Joint
Declaration which declares amongst other things:
Hence we wish to reaffirm solemnly our profession of common faith in the
incarnation of our Lord Jesus Christ . . . We confess that he became incarnate for us,
taking to himself a real body with a rational soul. He shared our humanity in all
We Believe in One Lord Jesus Christ 65
things except sin. We confess that our Lord and our God, our Saviour and the King
of all, Jesus Christ, is perfect God as to his divinity and perfect man as to his
humanity. In him his divinity is united to humanity. This union is real, perfect,
without blending or mingling, without confusion, without alteration, without divi-
sion, without the least separation. He who is God eternal and indivisible became
visible in the flesh and took the form of servant. In him are united, in a real, perfect
indivisible and inseparable way, divinity and humanity, and in him all their properties
are present and active.2
III. The biblical witness
We are given a many-faceted and rich portrayal of Jesus Christ in the New
Testament.
1. The Son of God
a) The unique relationship between Jesus and his heavenly Father (Synoptics) *
6. What features of the gospel record point us towards the affirmation of a
unique response by Jesus to God as Father? There are several points in the
Synoptic Gospels at which we glimpse something of how the first Christians
understood Jesus’ prayer: he prays in the night and the early morning in solitude
(Mark 1:35-36, 6:45-46); and he calls God by the intimate word “Abba” (Mark
14:36). It is probably this aramaic word that lies behind Jesus’ persistent and
distinctive reference to God as “my Father” in the gospel.
It is important to note that when we speak of “Father” and “Son” in their
relationship to each other in the Trinity, we do not mean to imply that God is male.
As a human being, Jesus Christ is male. But within the persons of the Trinity, there
is no gender. The meaning of Jesus’ relation to God as Father must also be
understood as it appears and develops in the incident and narrative of the Gospels.
(1) Jesus’ unique relationship to his Father is initiated by Mary’s obedient
reception of the angel Gabriel (Luke 1:38) and his announcement that she should
bear a son who would be called “the son of the most High” (Luke 1:31), “son of
God” (Luke 1:35). The Creed’s phrase “born of the Virgin Mary” tells us both of
his human birth , of a woman, and of the way in which God the Father is uniquely
his father.
(2) Luke 2:49 takes us back to Jesus’ boyhood', even here, the evangelist
suggests, when there is a conflict between obedience to earthly and to divine
authority, Jesus instinctively turns to “his Father’s business” — a foreshadowing
of the bitter conflicts ahead, when loyalty to the Father costs more and more, and
yet is never set aside.
(3) And in the baptism stories (Mark 1:11; Matt. 3:17; Luke 3:22), the voice
from heaven, “Thou art my Son, my Beloved” (or, as in Matthew, “This is my
Son”), reminds us that the Sonship of Jesus is concrete vocation, an anointing and
empowering in the circumstances of his human life as it unfolds — not merely a
reality completed in his birth, a static “given”.
(4) To this vocation, Jesus responds with joyful praise (Matt. 11:27): he ex-
periences the Father’s calling as a deep and ever-present intimacy of knowledge.
And this knowledge, this complete confidence and familiarity with the hidden
purpose of the Father, is dramatically expressed in terms of the judgment at the
end of time (Matt. 10:32): in the presence of the Father, Jesus will determine the
fate of human beings, according to their response to his call and proclamation.
Response to Jesus will decide God’s response to us.
66 One God, One Lord, One Spirit
(5) Jesus thus stands for the beginning and the climax of Israel’s history — with
Moses, who first interpreted the mind of God in the Torah, and with Elijah, whose
coming heralds the last (Mai. 4:5). So Jesus is revealed in glory between Moses and
Elijah, and yet he is revealed as more than Moses or Elijah: Peter identifies him as
“the Christ, the Son of the Living God” (Matt. 16:16). At the transfiguration a
voice from heaven again declares him “beloved” or “only” son (Mark 9:7; Matt.
17:5; Luke 9:35). But the climax in which the Son’s authority and oneness with the
Father are revealed is no simple apocalyptic victory: it is the exodus, “his
departure, which he was to accomplish at Jerusalem” (Luke 9:31).
(6) The climax of the last days lies in the fact that when God has sent his Son,
when he has fully expressed his fatherly love in Jesus, he has no more to give. “He
had still one other, a beloved son” (Mark 12:6). When the rebellious tenants of
God’s vineyard reject the son, they reject their last hope, and bring the crisis of
God’s judgment upon themselves.
(7) The Son’s task is to bear in anguish and solitude the ultimate rejection of
those to whom he came: in a world refusing grace, he carries the weight and
violence of that refusal, and cries, “Abba, Father” in the very moment when the
meaning of his terrible destiny is clearest to him in Gethsemane.
(8) So, on the cross , he recognizes that he still has authority to intercede, even
beyond human rejection, for the loveless and the violent. So rooted is he still in his
Father’s life that he can do no other than demand mercy for his torturers from the
Father whose mind he so fully knows to be a purpose of grace and love (Luke
23:34). He dies trustfully commending himself to his Father (Luke 23:46) — an
insight which is not cancelled but enhanced by the tradition of his cry of dereliction
(Mark 15:34). It is appropriate that after this last manifestation of Jesus’ Sonship,
the Roman centurion should say, “Truly this man was a son of God!” (Mark
15:39; Matt. 27:54) — words with a stronger and deeper meaning than their
speaker knew.
(9) As he dies in the name and for the sake of the Father’s authority, the
authority of the promise of mercy and life, so that same authority vindicates him.
It is not extinguished by sin, rejection and death: the promise and the hope abide.
And so Jesus is raised and given back to the world by the Father; and he is now
authorized to send “the Father’s promised gift” upon his followers, the fullness of
life and the consequent power for preaching and witness that will come with the
sending of the spirit (Luke 24:49).
The Synoptics thus fill out in narrative detail the great theme at the heart of the
whole gospel: Jesus of Nazareth is the true son of God.
b) The divine authority in the public ministry of Jesus (Synoptics)
7. But how is it that Jesus’ relationship to the Father becomes visible to others,
an authoritative sign of hope to them? John the Baptist pleads for reassurance:
“Are you the one who is to come?” And Jesus’ answer (Matt. 1 1:4—6) gives the
classical foundation for all Christology: “Go and tell John what you hear and see:
the blind receive their sight and the lame walk, lepers are cleansed and the deaf
hear, and the dead are raised up, and the poor have good news preached to them.
And blessed is he who takes no offence at me.”
Jesus answers John by pointing to the signs of the kingdom’s presence, freedom,
newness, fulfilment. His whole mission rests on the proclamation of the kingdom
(Mark 1:15): God’s moment is here, the kingdom is (if not wholly present)
“among” the people (Luke 17:21), it has “come upon” them (Matt. 12:28; Luke
We Believe in One Lord Jesus Christ 67
1 1 :20). Jesus’ presence effects, makes real, the triumph of God, his overcoming of
all that resists him.
(1) It is a time of fulfilment. The Law is brought to completion, its demands are
perfected and made intelligible by Jesus (Matt. 5:17-20). He is free to make radical
qualifications and reinterpretations to bring out the full sense of the Law (Matt.
5:21-48; Mark 2:23-28, 3:4; Luke 13:10-17). He is not simply an exegete of the
written word, but “speaks with authority” (Mark 1:27), unlike the qualified
religious elite (Mark 1:22; Matt. 7:29; cf. Mark 7: 1-13). He grasps decisively what
it is to be doing God’s will, and those who learn from him are his true kin (Mark
3:31-35).
(2) It is a time of celebration. The bridegroom is present: there can be no fasting
or mourning (Mark 2:18-20; cf. Matt. 1 1 : 16-19). The feast which will celebrate the
coming of God’s rule (Luke 13:29, 14:7-24) begins now (cf. Luke. 15: 22-24). And
it begins with the extending of God’s welcome to the outcast and guilty as Jesus sits
down to eat with them and be welcomed by them (Mark 2:15-17; Luke 19:9-10). It
is effectively symbolized also in the feeding of the multitudes who turn to Jesus for
material as well as spiritual nourishment. So more generally it is a time of welcome.
Those whom Law of custom had kept on the edges of society or excluded from the
chosen race are brought in along with the ancient people of God (Luke 13:29;
Mark 7:24—30; Matt. 8:5-13). Women are treated as examples of faith (Matt.
15:28) and as potential disciples, with a right to meditative learning (Luke
10:38—42). Children are also held up as examples (Matt. 18:1-7, 10) and greeted
with warmth (Mark 10:13-16).
(3) It is a time of battle and victory. Apart from the feeding of the hungry and
the healing of the diseased, it is especially the casting out of demons that proclaims
the kingdom’s presence (Matt. 12:28; Luke 1 1 :20). “The unclean spirits submit” to
Jesus’ authority (Mark 1:27). All that rebels against God in enslaving and
crippling women and men is overcome (Luke 13:16), and Satan falls “like lightning
from heaven” (Luke 10:18). The spirits recognize their master and yield (Mark
1:23-26, 5:6-13).
(4) It is a time of forgiveness. There is, as we have seen, a welcome for those
despised and condemned, there is a recognition that thankful love for God can
only spring from the experience of forgiveness (Luke 7:47). Above all, Jesus claims
the right to forgive, to anticipate God’s own judgment (Luke 7:48-50; Mark
2:1-12).
(5) And it is a time of new life — not only in the experience of healing,
deliverance and reconciliation, but in the restoring of the dead to life, the swift and
powerful response to the agony of loss (Mark 5:22^43; Luke 7:11-17). God is once
again shown to be effective in the midst of his people, “visiting” them to manifest
his re-creating power (Luke 7:16).
The time of Jesus is “the year of the Lord’s favour”: God’s anointed, em-
powered in God’s spirit, comes to effect pardon and release, to make God present ,
especially to those imprisoned or shut out by the sense of God’s absence (Matt.
1 1 :28). Jesus’ union with the One he calls Father is shown in the fact that he has the
authority to cause “God’s moment” to happen. His time is God’s time.
c) The eternal word of God (John)
8. St John’s Gospel underlines as well the unique relationship between Father
and Son and makes it even more exclusive: only the one who has come from God
has seen the Father (6:46). There is also the other aspect of divine authority in the
68 One God, One Lord, One Spirit
life of Jesus emphasized in St John: in order to assure the sheep that nobody will
snatch them from his care, the good shepherd declares: “I and the Father are one”
(10:30). This claiming equality with God brings Jesus in strong conflict with some
Jewish authorities (5:18). While they refuse to acknowledge his divine authority as
God’s only son (3:16f.), one of the twelve disciples, the doubting Thomas,
confesses after the encounter with the risen Christ: “My Lord and my God!”
(20:28). As a consequence of this, the famous prologue of St John’s Gospel
declares: “the only Son from the Father” (1:14) as the eternal word which “was
with God at the beginning, and through him all things came to be” (l:2f, RSV).
d) The self-giving love unto death (Paul)
9. Paul quotes in his letter many sentences from the very early Christian
tradition in order to demonstrate that his interpretation of the Gospel is in line
with the very beginnings of Christianity. One early hymn about Christ speaks
about his “divine nature” and his “equality with God” (Phil. 2:6). Another early
formula declares Christ as Son of God “by his resurrection from the dead” (Rom.
1 :4). Paul himself underlines especially the self-giving love of the Son of God unto
death on the cross (Rom. 8:32; Gal. 2:20; Phil. 2:8). Based on the mighty act of
resurrection from the dead Paul says that in Christ “the whole fullness of deity
dwells bodily” (Col. 2:9). In this sense Christ is “the image of the invisible God”
(Col. 1:15) and as a consequence of this he is understood as Lord over place and
time: “for in him all things were created, in heaven and on earth, visible and
invisible ... he is before all things, and in him all things hold together” (Col.
1 : 16-17). It is rather unlikely that the Jew Paul of Tarsus should have given the full
title “God” to Christ, as some exegetes interpret Romans 9:5, but certainly he
ascribed to the one Lord Jesus Christ creative and saving power, “through whom
are all things and through whom we exist” (1 Cor. 8:6).
e) The stamp of God's very being (Hebrews)
10. The solem introitus of the letter to the Hebrews which has so much to say
about Christ’s true humanity begins with a forceful praise* of the Son of God.
Because he had brought about by his death the purification from our sins and is
seated at the right hand of the heavenly majesty in the power of his resurrection,
Jesus Christ is praised as “the glory of God and bears the very stamp of his nature”
(Heb. 1:3). The Son has opened after many prophets the final age, he was made the
heir to the whole universe and he sustains it by his word of power (1:1-4).
In conclusion one is allowed to say that the Nicene formula “of one being with
the Father” has good grounds in the manifold New Testament witness.
2. The humanity of Jesus of Nazareth
a) Sharing in the human condition (Synoptics)
11. (1) Jesus Christ was among us as one of us. He shared with us in historical
existence in time and place (Luke 2: 1-2). He was neither a myth nor a superhuman
hero. He had a clear birthday, was born of a woman (Luke 2:7), and the time,
place, and conditions of his death are known to us. Like all of us, he endured the
limitations of physical life: he was born into a human family (Luke 8:19); he
underwent an ordinary human development, growing from childhood into adult-
hood (Luke 2:40). He suffered the limitations of human ignorance. Jesus of
Nazareth lived out his life in the circles of his family, his disciples, Jerusalem and
We Believe in One Lord Jesus Christ 69
the Jewish people, and finally in conflict with the oppressive forces of the Roman
Empire by which he came to his death.
(2) He was born and reared in a Jewish culture and tradition (Luke 2:21) which
remained his the whole of his life (Luke 23:46). He was born of the line of David
the king (Luke 1:27). As a Jewish male baby he was circumcized (Luke 2:21-24)
and presented in the temple as the first born. He participated in the Jewish life of
worship and celebrated its festivals (Luke 2:41-43; Mark 14:12). He loved the
temple and was angry that it was defiled by money-changers and traders (Matt.
21:12-13). His religious convictions had their roots in the Jewish understanding of
the Oneness of God and the radical claim God makes upon us (Mark 12:29-30)
that we love God and live a life in accordance with God’s grace to God’s people.
He fulfilled the obligations of a Jewish citizen under Roman rule, including the
paying of taxes (Matt. 17:24-27).
(3) He shared with us an ordinary life of human needs and emotions. In the
Gospel we see him thirsty and hungry (Matt. 4:2), tired (Matt. 8:4) and in pain. He
felt compassion for the sick (Matt. 14:14), the suffering (Luke 7:21) and the
grieving (Luke 19:41). He loved children (Matt. 19:13-14). He enjoyed eating and
drinking (Luke 7:36) and visiting with friends like Mary and Martha. We see him
feeling fear and mortal anguish at Gethsemane. He sometimes grew angry and he
often needed solitude (Luke 6:12; Mark l:35f.).
(4) He also knew real temptation , and the possibility of sin was not far from him
(Matt. 4:1-2). In the desert he could have escaped from his true mission by
succumbing to the temptations of money, power, and personal aggrandisement
(Matt. 4:3-1 1). At Gethsemane, in his fear and mortal anguish, he was tempted to
abandon his mission. He did not go like a hero to his death from the beginning, but
had to learn obedience (Matt. 26:39-42). “If it be possible, let this cup pass from
me, yet not my will but thine be done.”
(5) It is significant that he was an outcast already at his birth, born in a stable
among strangers (Luke 2:5-7). In his early childhood he was subjected to oppres-
sion as his family fled to exile in Egypt (Matt. 2: 14-15). He grew up in the family of
a carpenter, rather than as a member of an elite class (Luke 2:39-40, 57). He was
not a scholar or a religious official of any kind. The ten commandments and the
twofold commandment (Matt. 23:37-40) of love provided the basis of his work
among the poor and outcast. He associated with tax collectors (Luke 2:15),
“sinners”, Samaritans, gentiles, women, children. He lived as a poor man without
a home, dependent upon the charity of others. When he died, it was the shame-
ful and physically excruciating death of a slave, upon a cross (Luke 18:32;
Mark 15:25).
Jesus Christ experienced human life in all its aspects, physical and mental,
personal, religious, cultural, sociological, and in his death the political.
b) The sending of the Son into the world (John)
12. St John’s Gospel interprets in addition the human life of Jesus as God’s
sending of his only Son into the world (3:15f.; 17:3). His coming into the world
does not primarily refer to his birth — John, like Mark, does not tell any birth
story of Jesus — but rather to his mission on earth for the salvation of the world
(3:17). John underlines especially that it is the Son of God who came down from
heaven, thus pointing to the love of his heavenly father (3:16). The earthly origin of
the “son of Joseph” creates problems only for those who do not trust him as
“bread from heaven” (6:41 f. ). The prologue goes in the same direction and follows
70 One God, One Lord, One Spirit
an antidocetic intention when it speaks about the word which became flesh,
dwelling amongst human beings in glory, full of grace and truth (1:14).
c) The other Adam (Paul)
1 3. The pre-Pauline hymn for Christ mentions not only the “human likeness” of
Jesus Christ; it emphasizes rather more the paradox that the one equal with God
“emptied himself, taking the form of a servant, being born in the likeness of men”
(Phil. 2:7f.). Paul himself follows the same line of real humanity underlining that
God’s own son was “born of woman, born under the law” (Gal. 4:4) and died “on
a cross” (Phil. 2:8). Paul’s interpretation of Christ’s true humanity reaches its
deepest and at the same time its most universal level when he speaks about its
relevance for the whole humankind: Christ is the other Adam, who overcomes the
disobedience, unrighteousness and sin of the first. His true humanity represents the
new humankind. “Then as one man’s trespass led to condemnation for all men, so
one man’s act of righteousness leads to acquittal and life for all men” (Rom. 5:18).
The old and the new Adam contradict each other like death and life: “For as in
Adam all die, so also in Christ shall all be made alive” (1 Cor. 15:22).
d) The learning of obedience through suffering (Hebrews)
14. We find in the letter to the Hebrews the same pointing to Christ’s likeness
with all human beings “in every respect” (2:17; 4:15) as in the very early Christian
tradition. That means for this letter especially his being tempted (4:15) and the test
of suffering (2:18). In very realistic terms the letter speaks about “loud cries and
tears” during the days of his earthly life (5:7). His being the son of God does not
contradict his learning of obedience “through what he suffered” because suffering
belongs to his true humanity.
For the New Testament both aspects, Christ’s sonship and his true humanity, do
not compete with each other; rather, they complement and interpret each other.
Divine authority and human suffering belong inseparately together in the life of the
one person Jesus Christ.
IV. Jesus Christ: true God and true human being for us today
1 . Contemporary experiences
a) Concerning Jesus of Nazareth
15. It is amazing enough that Jesus of Nazareth who lived and died almost 2000
years ago belongs today to the best-known persons in the world. There are not very
many people who have not heard at all about a person named Jesus. Instead there
are very many people who appreciate him as teacher like Mahatma Gandhi, as
prophet like Mohammed, as revolutionary like the Marxists, as reformer of our
life-style like the youth movements, as peace-maker like the peace movements etc.
It is a very positive aspect that the person Jesus of Nazareth attracts so many
people in such different perspectives.
More problematic is the fact that Christians who claim Jesus Christ for them-
selves understand him often in a contradictory sense which contributes to separ-
ations among Christ’s disciples. Others regard him often just as one model of life
amongst others like Karl Marx, Che Guevara, Mahatma Gandhi. It is without any
doubt a big challenge to the Christian faith to identify the true human being Jesus
We Believe in One Lord Jesus Christ 71
of Nazareth in such a way that he unifies his disciples and helps to answer the
burning questions of our time.
b) Concerning God
16. It is much more difficult for millions of people today to understand Jesus as
the only Son of God and to relate him to his Father, in other words to find through
him the true God as the New Testament witnesses do. Today the contrary is in
manifold ways the case: the human being Jesus of Nazareth comes close whereas
God whom he claimed as his father becomes more and more distant. More than
ever is the very existence of God for many people an open, unsolved question.
There are broad branches of atheistic theories like most of the existentialist
thinking, there are atheistic ideologies which call the attention of millions of people
as in Eastern Europe, there exists first of all an atheistic practice in many parts of
the modern world. The great challenge to the Christian faith in this regard is to
witness through Christ to God’s present reality in such a way that people begin
again to believe in his merciful reality.
c) Concerning our human being
17. As a consequence of two world wars, of high living standards, of growing
secularism and pluralism a tremendous crisis of meaning of life has taken place in
the second half of our century. Sometimes developments end up with a paradox. It
seems to be true for many people: the more economic welfare they win, the more
meaning of life they lose. The growing number of persons committing suicide,
especially in Western countries, is an alarm clock which can no longer be ignored.
Here the Christian faith is challenged to confess the person Jesus Christ in such a
way that people can regain meaning for their personal and public life through the
experience of the God whom Jesus confessed as his father in whose name he
brought salvation to our threatened world.
2. True God— for us today
a) The God of Jesus
18. (1) Jesus Christ appears to us a historical human individual who nonethe-
less acts out of a unique sense of relationship to God as Father , a relationship that
gives him authority to make real in history the victorious compassion of God. His
“place” in our world is God’s; he is the image in history of a decisive power
resourceful enough to make and remake the world.
So we can say that in Jesus God is shown in a definite way. And if this is true, the
God of Jesus is, quite simply, God. We can have no language for him that is not the
language of Jesus — the language of Father and Son acting in harmony and love.
The creed is right to insist that God is not God independently of his being Father.
His being is in relation: Jesus comes to be seen as a “translation” into human
history of an eternal response of perfect love and praise to an eternal initiative of
overflowing life and reality.
(2) God, then, is a unity-in-diversity . He is neither an eternal individual, nor a
“group” of eternal individuals; both models are impossibly static, artificial and
anthropomorphic. He is living act, diffusing itself, reflecting and answering itself,
sharing itself. To enter the life of God is to enter through Jesus, at the point where
God’s love responds to its own fullness, and to be enabled, in the Spirit, to
communicate it as we grow in it.
72 One God, One Lord, One Spirit
(3) To say anything short of this would be for us, as Christians, to jeopardize
our belief in one God. If we believe that the time of Jesus is a time of fulfilment, not
total discontinuity, we must believe that the God of the Old Covenant at last fully
reveals in Jesus what is foreshadowed and hinted at in the history of Israel.
(4) The power of God, as we meet it in Jesus, is defined as essentially a power-
making for our salvation. God does not need to “decide” (let alone be persuaded)
to be our God. The life that flows from him is a life destined to be shared by his
creatures. The divine authority given to Jesus is the authority to spend himself to
the utmost, to die and to rise, for us. God has indeed no more to give (Mark 12:6).
“As the Father has life-giving power in himself, so has the Son, by the Father’s
gift.”
If God is by nature not only Father but liberator and redeemer, it is possible to
see that the affirmation of Jesus as “true God” expresses the foundational
Christian belief that God’s saving act is prior to all our decisions and all our
deserving. The meaning of Trinity is interwoven with our commitment to “justifi-
cation by faith” rather than by our own works apart from the Christ.
(5) All our reflection on God as Trinity rests on the experience of the kingdom,
the experience of renewed humanity. The theologians of the early church were
right to appeal to the baptismal formula in their defence of the Creed, because it is
in baptism that we make our own the kingdom, the new creation. In the name of
Father, Son and Holy Spirit, we claim “the promised gift”, our inheritance as
God’s children. By sharing the cross and resurrection of Jesus, the image of God’s
life in our world, we find in him the image of our humanity restored. In Christ, “of
one being with the Father” and “complete in all that belongs to us as human
beings”, we are once again reconciled to the source and end of all that is.
b) Challenges to us from Christ's divinity
19. (1) To confess Jesus Christ as son of God challenges an attitude which
regards him as only one important person amongst others. It rather implies to
affirm him as “the way, and the truth, and the life” (John 14:6). Thus he challenges
our full trust in him.
(2) Since Jesus makes God present in the world our approach to God is
challenged. God is not to be found far away beyond or behind our reality, rather in
time and place, in our world and history. “The word is near you, on your lips and
in your heart ...” (Rom. 10:8).
(3) There is no theoretical way to prove without any doubt the existence of God.
Jesus calls instead for obedience and discipleship: “If any man’s will is to do his
will, he shall know whether the teaching is from God or whether I am speaking on
my own authority” (John 7:17).
(4) Jesus’ reinforcement of the first commandment challenges the false gods of
our daily life: trust in self-reliance, money, economic welfare, arms race etc. Martin
Luther explains the first commandment: “Where your heart is, there is your God.”
(5) Christians share the confession to the one, undivided God with Jews and
Muslims. They challenge other religions like Hinduism in India which adore many
gods and incarnations.
3. True human being — for us today
a) The image of true humanity
20. (1) Confessing Jesus Christ as the truly human means first of all to affirm his
sharing in the conditions of normal human life , its gifts as well as its limitations, its
We Believe in One Lord Jesus Christ 73
chances as well as its temptations. As a human being Jesus of Nazareth was able to
undergo all basic human experiences: from his birth in a stable in the village of
Bethlehem until his death on a cross outside the gates of the holy city of Jerusalem;
from celebrating feasts with great joy to suffering under the torture of Roman
soldiers.
It is of great help for us today that Jesus shared our human conditions. As the
Epistle to the Hebrews (2:17) puts it: “Therefore he had to be made like his
brethren (and sisters) in every respect, so that he might become merciful.” The
likeness of Jesus Christ “in every respect” means that he is with us in every human
situation as a merciful Lord, be it in the joy of a wedding feast or in the pain of a
prison.
(2) Sharing in the general human conditions does not mean that Jesus lived out
his life like everybody else. On the contrary: the difference between his life and ours
is that he learned to be obedient to his Father in every respect (cf. Heb. 5:8). “For
we have not a high priest who is unable to sympathize with our weaknesses, but
one who in every respect has been tempted as we are, yet without sin” (Heb. 4:15).
Being tempted belongs to our general human condition, but to overcome temp-
tations “ without sin ” is unique in the earthly life of the Son of God. To live without
sin “in every respect” means for Jesus basically not to focus on his own life rather
than on the will of his Father and on the salvation of God’s creation. In other
words, the negative term “sinlessness” points to the positive fulfilment of God’s
first command: You shall love the Lord your God and your neighbour as yourself
(cf. Mark 12:30f.).
(3) Thus his life lived under normal human conditions is the image of our truly
human being; he is the second Adam. By his being and becoming, his words and
deeds, his anger and his love he shows us for our salvation what our true human
image looks like, what we should be and what we could become in the power of
God’s presence in our midst. Since he is able to convey his love “in every respect”
and to keep doing so under the hardest pressure of human sin at the cross, he
shows us the way to the overcoming of sin and death, how to correct self-
centredness through love.
(4) The true human life of Jesus of Nazareth is not only a general and
unattainable ideal for human beings but a concrete model for the realization of
Christian discipleship in the power of the Holy Spirit. After having washed the feet
of his disciples Jesus says to them: “I have given you an example, that you also
should do as I have done to you ... A servant is not greater than his master”
(John 13: 15f.). In general, his life points to the golden rule of love for our daily life.
What this means under concrete circumstances of poverty, hatred, oppression etc.,
he shows us by his attitude towards the poor, the oppressing and oppressed people,
thus giving us as his disciples a very concrete example for the direction and the way
of life, in which we shall go in order to receive true life abundantly.
(5) Thus we understand the incarnate life of the one person Jesus Christ as the
image of the one true God as well as the image of our truly human being. Being the
only Son of God he brings into our midst the real presence of his Father, in order
that we may become his children. Being the only image of true human being he
grafts us into the tree of “Israel”, he calls us as beloved children of his Father into
his discipleship, he points forward to the renewed people of God in the church and
he promises a new creation in which one humankind lives in one spirit as manifold
children of his Father, the one true God. Therefore, the church adores and praises
Jesus Christ as vere Deus — vere homo : true God and true Human Being.
74 One God, One Lord, One Spirit
b) Challenges to us from Christ’s humanity
21. While self-centredness and lovelessness may be characteristic of human life
as we know it, the humanity displayed to us in Jesus Christ challenges us to grow
into a new and real humanity in the following ways:
(1) We must define the truly human by our positive capabilities that are meant to
be ours as part of the image of God, not by our destructive capacities (cf.
John 9:1-3).
(2) The historical rootedness of Jesus Christ asks that we take seriously our own
historical existence within the whole people of God through the centuries and
throughout the world as well as with humanity at large (Eph. 4:4-6; 1 Cor.
12:12-26; Matt. 1:1-17; Luke 1:26-27; Luke 3:32-38 etc.).
(3) Jesus’ dependence upon his friends and his own care of others challenge us
to understand that dependence upon and responsibility for others are part of our
necessary humanness (Luke 10: 38-^42; 8:2; Rom. 15:1; Gal. 6:2; 1 John 4:7).
(4) Jesus’ own life-style as well as his care for the poor and the social outcasts
challenge us to disassociate productivity and the signs of wealth and worldly
success from the definition of what it means to be fully human (cf. Matt. 19:16-26).
(5) Jesus’ celibate life challenges us to see both marriage and celibacy as
Christian options, and to understand sexuality not as an end in itself but rather
belonging within the context of a shared life of love (cf. Matt. 19:1-12).
(6) Jesus’ willingness to share in our helplessness and his ministry to the helpless
challenge us to take our own mortality seriously and to acknowledge the full
humanity of those who are not considered valuable by a society because of youth,
age, illness or physical limitations (Luke 23:11; Mark 15:34—37; Luke 2:7).
(7) Jesus’ humanity challenges us to fulfill human needs on the basis of the value
of all human beings to God rather than in terms of rights (Matt. 25:31-46; cf.
Matt. 9:35-36, 16:32).
(8) Jesus’ own valuing of women as well as of men challenges us to recognize
that in Christ there is neither male nor female and to live this Christian reality out in
our churches, our homes, and our wider culture (Gal. 3:28; Matt. 15:22-28; Luke
9:36ff., 10:38fL).
B. JESUS CHRIST — SUFFERED AND CRUCIFIED FOR OUR SAKE
I. The theme
1 . Beginning with the early New Testament witness and throughout the centur-
ies the church confesses that Jesus Christ suffered and was crucified for us. The
theological significance and focus of this confession is indicated by ‘ for our sake
These words point to the decisive saving event for all human beings. Such
confession is, of course, made on the basis and in the perspective of the full
Christological confession of Jesus Christ being true God and true human being
and of Jesus Christ being raised from the dead by God.
2. How can that apparently incredible, impossible confession that one person
suffered and died for the whole of humanity of all ages be substantiated? How can
the “for us” be interpreted and proclaimed in relation to the human condition of
our time? Is it possible for churches of different traditions and living in diverse
cultural, historical and socio-political contexts to be joined together in a common
response to the above-mentioned and other questions ?
We Believe in One Lord Jesus Christ 75
II. The Creed
For our sake he was crucified under Pontius Pilate;
he suffered death and was buried.
3. In the Nicene-Constantinopolitan Creed the crucifixion , suffering and burial
of Jesus Christ are the only data concerning his human history besides the fact of
his birth. They sum up and denote the mission of his life which was aimed at our
salvation. The reference to “suffering”, following after the reference to “cruci-
fixion”, is related to Christ’s death. This can be concluded not only when all the
historical circumstances of this credal articulation are taken into account, but also
when the various aspects of Christ’s dying are considered.
4. The death of Christ in the Creed is given a comparatively brief reference when
compared with the preceding section which deals with the Divine Person and the
incarnation of Christ. This imbalance is readily understood when the context of the
Arian controversy is taken into account; but it has a positive import, inasmuch as
it makes it absolutely clear that he who was crucified and suffered and was buried
was the eternal Son of God who became a human being. In this light the death of
Christ reveals that God does not stand apart from the human predicament, nor
does He meet it from a transcendent standpoint, but participates in it and thus
provides the solution for it.
5. Particularly significant in this credal formulation is the phrase “ under Pontius
Pilate ” which not only indicates that the death and suffering of the incarnate Son
of God is a specific historical event but puts it in the wider context of world history
and human political power.
6. The most significant phrase in the credal formulation of Christ’s death is ‘ for
our sake ” which also appears in the preceding formulation concerning the incar-
nation and indicates not just the significant link between the incarnation and the
death of God’s Son, but especially their saving character for all humanity.
7. Finally in the Creed Christ’s death is fundamentally linked with Christ’s
resurrection, ascension and second coming and thereby opens up the dimension of
Christ’s saving victory over death on behalf of all humankind.
III. The biblical witness
8. Both the event and the meaning of the suffering and death of Christ are
proclaimed in a variety of ways in all the writings which constitute the New
Testament. The Synoptic Gospels see the suffering and death of Jesus as the
inevitable and final consequence of his life and ministry. They indicate that Jesus’
manner of life and his teaching brought him into conflict with the religious
authorities and had political implications. The condemnation of Jesus by the
Jewish religious authorities led to his execution by the Roman state. The Gospels
also present Jesus’ teaching his disciples about the necessity of his suffering and
death in Jerusalem as presenting the will of God (Mark 8:31, 9:31, 10:32ff.). They
show Jesus in seeking to do this will experiencing inner agony and struggle (Mark
14:39) and even a sense of utter abandonment (Mark 15:34). Ultimately Jesus’
obedience in suffering and death results in the fulfilment of his Father’s will, which
finds expression in the gift of God’s love to the world.
9. In the Gospel of St John Christ’s suffering and death are given a wider
meaning in the sense that they expose a deeper struggle between the God of love,
light and life, and the world of evil, darkness and death, between belief and
76 One God , One Lord, One Spirit
unbelief (12:31, 14:30, 16: 11,33). But all this is obviously related to the very person
and the whole life of Jesus and to his victorious cross.
10. In the early preaching of the apostles as seen in the Book of the Acts, the
suffering and death of Christ are interpreted with reference to the Old Testament
prophetic imagery of the righteous servant (Acts 3:14), on the one hand, and on
the other hand to the resurrection as the vindication of God’s servant. The
crucifixion is the prelude to the fulfilment of God’s purposes in the resurrection.
Here too, as in the Gospels, Christ’s suffering and death have saving significance
inasmuch as they imply that Christ suffered and died “for us”.
11. The meaning of the suffering and death of Christ “for us” acquires further
interpretation in the Epistles. In saying that “God gave his Son for us all”
(Rom. 8:32) and in quoting an old credal confession, “Christ dies for our sins” (1
Cor. 15:3), St Paul interprets Christ’s suffering and death in the light of Isaiah 53
which states: “He was wounded for our transgressions, he was bruised for our
iniquities . . (53:5). The death of Jesus is of paradoxical nature: the one who was
without sin was to carry our sins so that the sinful ones may receive forgiveness; the
curse and death of the one in whom God came into our midst becomes a blessing
for all (cf. Rom. 8:3; 2 Cor. 5:21; Gal. 3:13). The meaning of this “for us” or “for
our sins” is presumably threefold: (1) our sins are the root cause of Jesus’ suffering
and dying; (2) Jesus Christ accepted representatively and vicariously for us the
death which we ourselves really deserve on account of our sins; (3) Jesus Christ
died for our liberation from death and sin and our justification by and before God.
These are three aspects of one and the same event, of course, and are indissolubly
bound up with one another. They interpret the death of Jesus in terms of the
notion of expiation and representation. Because it is God who gives his Son, this
expiatory event is God’s action for our sake, an event in which God reconciles us to
himself (2 Cor. 5:18).
It is a dying “ for us ”, in the sense that Jesus, despite all the hostility and all the
pain inflicted upon him by people and authorities, did not abandon his mission of
love but persisted in it — the very same love in whose strength he displayed to his
fellow human beings the unconditional love of the Father. Jesus’ death is not a
“condition” in the sense that the Father’s love requires such an expiatory offering;
rather Jesus’ life was lived under such human “conditions” which made his death
on the cross inescapable: it was inevitable that in bringing the Father’s boundless
love into this world Jesus had to suffer such demonstrations of hostility which led
to his death. In this sense, then, Jesus’ sacrifice in suffering and death is the means
for bringing God’s love to humanity. The notion of Christ’s death as sacrifice
which appears in Pauline teaching (Rom. 3:25) and in 1 Peter (l:18f.) is parti-
cularly developed in the Epistle to the Hebrews where Christ stands for us in
obedience to God as our great high-priest.
12. The suffering and death of Christ as a saving event for us is appropriated by
us in two ways which are closely inter-related. On the one hand through believing
in the proclamation of the word, through receiving baptism as taking part in
Christ’s death and through partaking of the eucharist Christians are forgiven their
sins and participate in the saving grace issuing out of Christ’s vicarious suffering
and death (1 Cor. 1:18; Rom. 6:3-5; 1 Cor. 1 1 :23-25; Mark 14:22ff. and parallels).
On the other hand, Christians participate in the suffering of Christ in following
him in their life and bearing their cross (Mark 8:34; Heb. 12:2ff.). In Colossians
1 : 24 St Paul’s sufferings are related in a mysterious way to Christ’s suffering, as a
“filling up of what is lacking in the sufferings of Christ for the church which is his
We Believe in One Lord Jesus Christ 77
body”. The New Testament teaching as a whole, however, underlines the unique-
ness and sufficiency of Christ’s suffering and death for the salvation of humanity. It
is the continuing task of the church to confess, proclaim, celebrate and live this
reality in obedient discipleship to its suffering, crucified — and risen and living —
Lord, the head of his body.
IV. Christ’s suffering and death for us
13. In continuity with the apostolic faith as witnessed by the holy scripture and
summarized in the Nicene Creed, we confess today that Jesus Christ suffered and
was crucified for us. This confession is made in a world which is marked as never
before by the struggle between the forces of life and the forces of sin, suffering and
death.
14. As at all times human beings are in bondage to sin. They are estranged from
God and seek to justify themselves by their own efforts and achievements. This
self-centredness, egoism and striving for power over others also manifest themsel-
ves in the attitudes of whole groups of people and in many contemporary social,
political and economic structures.
15. Such human sinfulness is one of the root causes of suffering and death
through lack of love, hatred, negligence, selfishness, domination and unjust or
oppressive forms and conditions of life. Hunger, imposed poverty, exploitation,
discrimination because of race, class, sex or political conviction, oppression by
means of totalitarian and unjust systems and anxiety in the midst of an un-
precedented arms race, ruthless exploitation of natural resources and an ever-
widening gap between rich and poor nations are some of the consequences.
16. Individuals and groups of people suffer under alienation, hopelessness,
despair, loneliness, illness and pain, corporal and mental handicaps or natural
calamities. Such suffering may be self-inflicted or a reaction to the kind of societies
and world we live in, or it may be experienced as an innocent or meaningless
suffering. But there is also a freely accepted suffering because people continue
today also to risk their lives in order to help and save others and to alleviate human
suffering through their commitment to social change.
1 7. The lives of all human beings come to an end. All face death , unexpected and
premature, caused by others, by suffering, illness, accidents or disasters, or they
approach their own death and the death of loved ones as the conclusion of a long
life. Death is the sign of our sinful, finite and passing world.
18. Yet despite all identifiable causes and rational explanations of suffering and
death a deeper question remains: Why is there suffering and death at all? Why does
this kind of suffering happen to me and not to others? Why are my people at the
abyss of starvation while others are enjoying their affluence and apparent security?
There seems to be no convincing answer in all attempts of human minds to wrestle
with the mystery of suffering and death.
19. Behind these questions lies a hidden or open protest against suffering and
death. This protest finds explicit expression in the struggle of the forces of life
against the forces of sin, suffering and death. There is compassion with and
sensitiveness for the suffering ones. Many efforts are undertaken in order to
improve the conditions of human life through medical care, social services and
through changing structures which inflict massive suffering and death. Religions,
philosophies and ideologies seek in their way to sustain the struggle against
suffering and death. We believe, however, that the forces of life find their most firm
78 One God , One Lord, One Spirit
roots and overcoming strength in the suffering, death and resurrection of Jesus
Christ.
20. The gospel of the suffering and death of Christ is good news for all people,
not only those who actually suffer but those who seem to be free from it, for the
sick as well as the healthy. All human beings live in a situation of sin and death and
are in need of Christ’s redeeming grace. Indeed, the entire creation groans and
travails awaiting the salvation of humankind (Rom. 8:19). The salvation offered
through the suffering and death of Christ does not explain the why of human sin,
suffering and death, but shows how it is overcome.
21. The death of Christ has been understood in three ways which have come to
be regarded as “classical”:
a) The first type of interpretation is found in the theology of the ancient church
and is continued in the tradition of the Eastern church in particular. Here, the
death of Jesus Christ — God and human being — is seen as destroying death’s
power and influence by which human beings are burdened and oppressed. The
death and resurrection of Jesus is a victory by which human beings are liberated
from death and all the powers of darkness.
b) A second type of interpretation is found in the Latin West. Here the death of
Jesus is understood as an atoning event whereby the guilt incurred by human
beings in God’s sight because of their sin is expunged.
c) There is a third type of interpretation which is found especially in modern
theology. Here the dying of Jesus is seen in the perspective of his total obedience.
He remained faithful to his mission right to the very end. Thereby he became for us
the example and even prototype of a life which refuses to be diverted from its
devotion to God and other human beings and which claims God as the loving and
merciful one.
On the basis of the biblical witness as outlined above we believe that these
interpretations are not alternatives. They emphasize particular aspects of that
witness and should be held together as complementary.
22. Christ suffered and died for the liberation of humanity from the grip of sin
and the judgment of God upon it. Sin opposes and alienates human beings from
God and also from one another. It causes hatred and suffering among human
beings, gives rise to unjust and oppressive institutions and structures in human
society and leads the human being to disturb the natural world order. This
situation created by sin is also to be seen as a manifestation of God’s judgment, in
that, as the apostle says, “he gives humanity up to uncleanness through the lusts of
their own hearts” (Rom. 1:24, cf. 26 and 28).
Christ came into this situation of sin and of God’s judgment. In his suffering and
death he experienced the consequences of human sin. He was sent by God “in the
likeness of sinful flesh and for sin” (Rom. 8:3) as one who was himself without sin,
as lamb of God (John 1:29) and he carried away the sins of the world like a
scapegoat (Lev. 16:22).
This was the way in which God was reconciling the world with himself and saved
it from sin and judgment. The message of the reconciliation accomplished in the
death of Jesus is for all people the offer of liberation: through justification and
forgiveness of sins received in faith as well as in the gift of new life from the
Holy Spirit. God is comforting consciences burdened by sin and guilt. He
liberates people from the devilish circle of self-justification and egoism, hatred
and injury to the neighbour, lack of gratitude towards God and disregard
of God.
We Believe in One Lord Jesus Christ 79
God calls and empowers human beings to effect reconciliation with each other
both as individuals and as communities. Reconciliation is possible in that people
have been liberated from themselves and learn to respect the right of others, also of
those of different convictions, and see in them people who are also loved by God.
23. Christ suffered and died on the cross as the incarnate Son of God. In the
suffering and cross of Jesus, God has taken upon himself human pain and death.
God demonstrated his solidarity with and his compassion for human suffering.
This was not done in order to justify suffering and death or even make them into
something divine, rather to declare war on them and to overcome them by the way
to the victory of the resurrection. God is on the side of human beings in the
struggle with the powers of sin and death.
This has a twofold meaning for people who are under sin, suffering and death.
God is demonstrating to them that he is with them in these situations, that he is
suffering where people are suffering and is thereby giving them consolation and
strength. God is also providing them with a hope for a life which is no longer
marked by death. On the other hand God’s solidarity empowers human beings to
struggle against sin, suffering and death, against all forms of injustice, exploitation,
oppression, war, racism, etc.
24. Because Christians are incorporated into Christ, they are led in many ways
to suffer with him in participating in his obedience. The call to discipleship implies
the readiness to carry his cross, because the “yes” to God today runs the risk of
entering into the destiny of Jesus Christ, of his “yes” to God for which he was
crucified.
And in our suffering for others , Christ uses this suffering to do his work of love
and salvation through us. Such suffering with Christ for others has marked the life
of many Christians, beginning with the followers of Jesus in the first Christian
communities through the centuries till today. This company of suffering witnesses
includes the many well-known martyrs as well as millions of unknown Christians.
Through their participation in Christ’s suffering they received the gift of new life
which overcomes all suffering, and they witnessed to this gift to their fellow human
beings.
25. The suffering and the apparent scandal of the crucifixion of Jesus exposes
and unmasks the unjust powers of this world. The one who was innocent and just
was crucified as a criminal, and this scandalon continues in history to unmask
injustice that tries to appear as justice. The crucifixion of Jesus also exposes the
cruelty of human beings and of dominant religions and political powers. They
seemed to triumph over the only righteous and loving one. Yet their victory was
revealed as defeat by God’s victory in the resurrection. What appeared to be
strong, legal and established was exposed as weak and penultimate. The apparent
weakness of God proved to be stronger than the mighty ones.
All Christians and churches are, therefore, called to continue in the power of
Christ’s suffering, crucifixion and resurrection to unmask the inhuman and oppres-
sive powers in this world. Looking back at those who pretended to serve God’s will
by crucifying his Son, Christians are enabled to identify the idols of today which try
to take the place of the true and only God. This critical attitude includes an
awareness over against the danger of a false triumphalism in the church and among
Christians which overshadows God’s victory in the cross and resurrection of his
Son. Rather, Christians are called and empowered by their obedient suffering with
Christ as well as in explicitly denouncing all powers that seek to take the place of
God to be effective witnesses to Jesus Christ, the life of the world.
80 One God, One Lord, One Spirit
C. JESUS CHRIST — HIS RULE TODAY AND TOMORROW
I. The theme
1. The believers experience the presence of the living Christ in their worship
services, in celebrating the eucharist, in accepting and in offering forgiveness, in
loving and in blessing one another. They would not be able to pray, were it not in
the name of Christ. They would have no hope in this world of death and hatred,
were it not for their belief that the suffering Christ is the Risen One. By this they
mean that Jesus Christ has been vindicated by God and that their own future, their
freedom before God and the world, depends on this vindication and victory. They
can do this because they know that the Servant-Lord is present in their sufferings
and difficulties, indeed that he participates in the struggles of the people towards a
God-willed and truly human future. As adopted children of God, they can freely
review and discuss their own past — history with all its failures and sins — because
they know of forgiveness. They can also openly and fearlessly face the future
because they rely on the promise of God that his shalom and righteousness will
indeed be the final word on human history and on the universe.
II. The Creed
On the third day he rose again
in accordance with the scriptures;
he ascended into heaven
and is seated at the right hand of the Father.
He will come again in glory to judge the living and the dead,
and his kingdom will have no end.
2. These affirmations are the sources for the believers’ joy and hope. The Creed’s
statements in this part consist almost entirely of direct and indirect quotations
from New Testament texts. The purpose of this selection of central biblical
affirmations must be seen in the original use of Creeds in baptism. In later centuries
as well as today, these summarizing statements express in doxological language,
i.e. in language primarily addressed to God in worship, the heart of the Christians’
joy and hope for themselves and for all creatures in the ongoing high-priestly work
of Jesus Christ.
1 . The Lord who is and who is to come
3. The affirmations of the Nicene-Constantinopolitan Creed of 381 which refer
to the resurrection, ascension and to the present as well as eternal rule of Christ
follow a chronological order. In this they continue with the pattern found in the
first half of the Christological article of the Creed. Thus the Creed reflects a vision
of the “history of salvation”, similar to earlier and shorter creeds in the Eastern
and the Western church, e.g. the Apostles’ Creed. This is of particular importance
with regard to the statements concerning the second advent of Christ and the final
consummation. History will reach its end, his rule will not. It is noteworthy that
the concept of a millenium, a reign of 1000 years following the second advent, is
absent. (It had already been discarded by Hippolytus in the early third century.)
4. This section of the Nicene-Constantinopolitan Creed reflects the fact that the
church had settled the question as to whether God the Father or God the Son was
to be seen as final judge. There is biblical evidence for either of these views. The
risen Jesus Christ is the judge.
We Believe in One Lord Jesus Christ 81
Of special interest is also the explanatory addition to the affirmation of the
resurrection: “according to the scriptures” (1 Cor. 15:3). Whilst the Creed affirms
Christ’s crucifixion as an event “for us”, a corresponding phrase with regard to the
resurrection is not expressed. Rather our justification is connected with the final
judgment.
2. The spring of joy and hope
5. The resurrection of Jesus Christ is a present reality, and not a mere past
event. It makes its presence felt in various ways and manners, though in a veiled
form in this present age. In fact, it is the ground of Christian joy as well as hope.
The resurrection of Jesus Christ gives rise to joy which expresses itself in the
joyful singing of hymns and lyrics, in liturgical and extempore prayers — collective
as well as individual — in the celebration of the eucharist, in Christian fellowship,
in search for a wider and deeper Christian unity, in sharing the good news of Jesus
Christ even in adverse circumstances, in service to the poor, the needy and the sick,
and in Christian giving. For the resurrection of Jesus Christ liberates us from the
forces of death, makes our justification possible as well as meaningful, and assures
us of the continued presence of Christ in all situations and in every circumstance. It
is the joyous message of the resurrection that enables Christians to cross all human
frontiers and break all human-made barriers: caste, class, race and sex.
6. The resurrection of Jesus Christ also evokes hope in us — hope for the life on
earth as well as life beyond death. For it points to a wider horizon and to God’s
offer of a new future, both for the individual and the whole humanity. In the light
of the resurrection, therefore, there are no ultimate dead-ends or hopeless situ-
ations, because the God of the resurrection is present in Christ to offer a new
possibility, calling forth life out of death. This hope drives away the fear of death
and all evil powers. It refuses to be satisfied with maintaining the status quo of the
old creation and challenges all oppressive powers that thwart new life. The life that
is based on the resurrection concerns itself with the wholeness of human personal-
ity, knowing full well that it is not only the spiritual but also the physical that
matters. At the same time it seeks the wellbeing of the neighbour and the renewal
of humanity since it knows that Jesus rose again to be the new head of humanity.
7. This hope enables us to work for changes — both in the church and in society
at large — in so far as these changes are positive and liberating. It also gives us
strength to accept suffering in the name of Christ, whether it is imposed upon us
against our will or whether it is voluntarily chosen for the sake of others. In all
these situations it is the Risen Lord who brings peace that surpasses all under-
standing and cannot be taken away. As Jesus’ resurrection was God’s act of
vindication of what Jesus said, did and stood for, the belief and hope that are based
on the resurrection challenges the church to stand by the side of the oppressed, the
marginalized and the deprived, and to work for justice concerns. The church needs
to take this challenge seriously, so that it may not fall into the danger of a false
triumphalism.
The resurrection of Jesus Christ is, thus, the spring of Christian joy as well as
hope.
III. The biblical witness and later interpretations
1 . The relation between resurrection, ascension and Christs rule
8. The Creed fully represents the intimate connection between the resurrection,
the ascension and the present and future rule of Jesus Christ as it is expressed in
82 One God, One Lord, One Spirit
theological passages, in admonitions as well as in the doxological parts of the New
Testament. The biblical witness is undoubtedly unanimous in stressing the unity of
these realities, although differences are found among the individual books in the
New Testament in the emphasis on the distinction between them. Whilst, for
instance, the distinction between the resurrection and the ascension is not men-
tioned in the writings of the apostle Paul, and not stressed particularly in the
Gospel of St John, Luke/ Acts emphasize a chronological sequence in which the
ascension followed Easter after forty days. This latter chronology has become
the dominant view in the early church and is expressed in the Nicene-Constantino-
politan Creed.
9. The presence of the risen Jesus Christ among the worshipping community
(Matt. 28:17), even outside the church in complex human situations, and indeed in
the individual lives of the believers (Gal. 2:20), is central to the explications and
exhortations of the New Testament. This presence is at times expressed in terms of
the earlier Jewish understanding of the shekinah of God, at times in sacrificial
language but also in terms not used before the coming of Jesus Christ. The epistle
to the Hebrews speaks of the ongoing intercession of Christ the High Priest.
10. The New Testament passages concerning the Last Judgment follow Old
Testament or apocalyptic writings. They all presuppose the identity of the Cruci-
fied Christ with the Risen One and never suggest that the judge is an unknown God
who treats the believers as strangers.
11. All of these observations call for an examination of the meaning of “the
presence of Christ ”. We cannot explain the way in which Jesus of Nazareth
absented himself from his disciples, nor can we compare the mode of his presence
today with seemingly similar forms of spiritual presence, e.g. with the feeling which
may emerge among the friends of a dead leader. The Risen Lord has his own mode
of making himself present in the Holy Spirit. However, the inability to explain the
mode of Jesus Christ’s presence does not mean that the believers are incapable of
pointing to signs of his presence in their congregations, their individual lives, and
indeed in society and history in general. They search with the eyes of faith for such
signs and rejoice in them. They also see the challenge to put up those signs
themselves in spearheading a new humanity in justice and peace. Thus the
resurrection and the ascension are fundamental for the Christian’s social re-
sponsibility, not merely for their own piety or their hopes for life after death.
2. The interpretation of the resurrection
12. After the death of Jesus the disciples encountered the Risen Lord in a
number of appearances. Those among the very early believers who were familiar
with the Old Testament and especially with apocalypticism were prepared to grasp
the proclamation that Jesus had been raised from the dead “according to the
scriptures” (1 Cor. 15:3). Jesus as the first-born of the dead (15:20) was in an
exemplary and unique way the recipient of the creative power of the God who calls
light from darkness and life from death. Thus the New Testament passages which
by direct or indirect reference to Old Testament or to apocalyptic writings refer to
the resurrection, all reflect this particular event: Jesus is raised from the dead. This,
however, is not to say that they all portray an identical understanding of this event.
The differences range from the direct assertion that Jesus’ dead body became alive
in a form similar to his body before death (Luke 24) to the conception of a
resurrection to a spiritual body (1 Cor. 15).
We Believe in One Lord Jesus Christ 83
13. There was, however, another way of referring to the resurrection which
seemed to have been geared to those unfamiliar with Jewish scriptures. Passages of
this kind are found in the Gospel of St John (John 11:25) and especially in the
brief, ancient hymn in 1 Timothy 3:16:
He was manifested in the flesh
vindicated in the Spirit,
seen by angels,
preached among the nations,
believed on in the world,
taken up in glory.
14. In addition to these varying articulations of the resurrection in the New
Testament, later theology has provided a series of interpretations which deserve to
be mentioned. They are not all mutually exclusive. Some of them, however, are
wanting in the richness and fullness of the biblical Easter message. All of them
intend to take seriously the ongoing work of God in Jesus Christ and the identity
of the Crucified with the Christ who is present:
— The early church (in combatting Gnosticism) stressed the physical understand-
ing of the resurrection, an understanding close to that of most of the biblical
witnesses. Affirming the resurrection — this must be admitted — at times came
close to affirming Easter as a verifying miracle.
— Gnostic as well as later philosophical interpretations often affirmed the entirely
spiritual nature of the resurrection (the appearances of the risen Lord as
visions).
— The concept that Jesus Christ was, so to speak, raised into the church and its
authority structures, was not alien to certain tendencies in Western piety and
theology.
— Related to this is a recent explication of the resurrection as the occurrence of
“Jesus having been raised into the apostolic message of the church” (the
kerygma).
— There is also an eschatological interpretation which refers to our inability to
demonstrate the historicity of the resurrection of Jesus. This interpretation
stresses the fact that we “will know” how Jesus was raised and that such fore-
knowledge renders it probable that the Easter of the past was indeed a historical
fact.
Whilst the believers today cannot fully agree on the mode of the resurrection,
there is no disagreement among us on the confession that the resurrection of Jesus
is the foundation of our lives — and that of the whole world — and the promise of
our own resurrection.
IV. The Risen Christ — today and tomorrow
1 . Christ s rule today
15. In affirming Christ as Lord, “seated at the right hand of the Father”, we
affirm our faith that, in spite of human sin and all its painful consequences, God is
and will be victorious over all the forces of evil and over death itself. This is the
basis of the “good news”, and of the ministry and mission of the church. We
proclaim the gospel in order that Christ’s reign may be extended in the world.
16. The Lordship of Christ is not merely an objective or impersonal fact; it is an
event which demands our response. In the Risen Lord we recognize the Servant
84 One God, One Lord, One Spirit
Lord, the Crucified One. He calls us to be faithful disciples, to continue his
ministry of loving service, to take up our cross and to suffer for his sake. It is in so
doing that we participate in the new creation which began at the first Easter. Mere
intellectual or ritualistic affirmation of Christ’s Lordship belittles this high calling.
17. In the Nicene Creed, Christians proclaim that the forces of death and evil
have been defeated, that Christ now reigns with the Father, and that God’s
kingdom of peace, justice and love is already a reality. This affirmation seems to be
in strong contrast to human experience in a world in which we know evil and
suffering in many forms, and in which all life ends in death. In the light of such
experience Christians may repeat Job’s questioning of God. They may feel power-
less and hopeless when confronted with the many problems of our world and the
enormity of suffering. But we see in the resurrection ground for our faith that God
is the one who calls life from death. Faith in the resurrection and in the power of
the Resurrected One gives us a new perspective from which to view our experience
in this world. It is in spite of evil, suffering and death, that we proclaim Christ as
Lord.
18. In the present age we still await the fulfilment of Christ’s victory and reign,
but with the eyes of faith we see signs of the resurrection present in our midst,
wherever new life breaks into the old. We see resurrection signs in the lives of men
and women who fearlessly commit themselves to follow the Crucified One, and in
the witness of the many martyrs of our time. We see many signs wherever there is
new self-understanding and new sense of community, wherever healing, reconcili-
ation and liberation take place, wherever there is openness to change and growth.
We experience foretastes of resurrection whenever faith in Christ, hope in Christ,
and love in Christ lead us to such openness.
19. This faith helps us to overcome our human fear of death and suffering. As
the risen Christ gave peace to his fearful disciples and enabled them to move out
from behind closed doors into a hostile world, so he gives us peace, and with it the
courage to be and to move out joyfully from behind our closed doors into the many
possibilities of new life.
2. Christ s rule tomorrow
20. As Christians we are united in our conviction that we all have to appear
before the judgment of Christ. There are however differing beliefs about the time
and manner of Christ’s return and of the judgment. There are some who affirm a
realized eschatology, to whom judgment is a present experience, while others have
a more apocalyptic understanding, believing that the end-time and the judgment
are yet to come. Some believe in individual resurrection of the dead; others believe
that judgment will occur only at this universal resurrection. For many of us, this
diversity of Christian understanding reflects a diversity within the New Testament
writings, in which we distinguish both the Johannine perspective and that of the
author of Luke/ Acts, as well as the shifting Pauline interpretation.
21. The formulation in the Nicene Creed that Christ “will come again in glory
to judge the living and the dead” does not take into account all the traditions
which are contained in the New Testament. In particular, in its proclamation of
Christ as the judge, it ignores the traditions in which Christ is the advocate who
pleads on our behalf as we stand before the judgment of the Father, and in which
Christ is himself the sacrifice for our sins. We believe that the manifold images used
by the biblical writers are indeed images and that we should not imprison them
within juridical language and conceptuality.
We Believe in One Lord Jesus Christ 85
22. The temptation of Christians is often to set ourselves up in judgment of
others, or to desire a divine Judge who will judge according to our will. However we
believe that the “good news” is that we are not called upon to judge. This does not
mean that we are to refrain from creative social criticism and political action. But
judgment is God’s prerogative and will take place according to God’s will as
revealed in Christ. As such, it may well have outcomes different from what we
expect and desire.
23. As far as God’s judgment on us is concerned, we agree in our belief that,
however much righteousness and love may be in tension in human life, the full
witness of the Bible is that in God they cannot be separated. We are not righteous,
but our judge is the righteous one. We cannot abdicate our human responsibility
for our sin, but we face our judgment trusting in God’s merciful and forgiving love,
revealed to us in the Christ who himself has gone through suffering and vindi-
cation, and teaches us to love our enemies.
24. In proclaiming that “Christ will come again ” we affirm our faith that history
will not end in chaos, but that it will end in the One in whom it had its beginning,
the One who is the Alpha and the Omega. We recognize that there is a tension
between realized and apocalyptic eschatology, but we all believe that the new
creation began in Christ will also be fulfilled in Christ. We understand this as an
all-inclusive fulfilment, for our individual justification and salvation is only part of
the longed-for redemption of the whole creation. So we join ourselves to the
intercessory ministry of Christ, praying for the unity of the church and the renewal
of human community.
25. Thus we wait in eager hope for the final fulfilment and consummation of
God’s offer of new life, which is given to our world and history in the resurrection
of Christ, the Crucified, the Lord. “Beloved, we are God’s children now; it does not
yet appear what we shall be, but we know that when he appears we shall be like
him; for we shall see him as he is” (1 John 3:2).
NOTES
1. In “Apostolic Faith Today: a Handbook for Study’’, H.-G. Link ed., Faith and Order
Paper No. 124 , Geneva, WCC, 1985, p.166.
2. In L’Osservatore Romano , English edition, 2 July 1984, p.7.
We Believe in One Lord Jesus Christ
Interpretation of the Second Article of the Creed:
the Way from Kottayam to Potsdam
DIETRICH RITSCHL
Introduction
I. The incarnation — interpreted in terms of the salvation of the world
1. General aspects of the evolution of the text
2. Input from lectures
3. The Kottayam text
4. Additions and deletions (Cret-Berard I)
5. Development in the direction of a text (Cret-Berard II and Potsdam)
II. The passion — the suffering of God and humanity
1 . General aspects of the evolution of the text
2. Sensitivity to the cultural dimension
3. Difficulties over method in Kottayam
4. Additions and alterations before Stavanger
5. Unanswered exegetical questions
6. The influence of the work in Stavanger
7. Additions in Cret-Berard II
III. The victory over all powers
1 . General aspects of the evolution of the text
2. Regional and confessional conditions
3. The Kottayam text
4. Later changes
5. Open fronts in spite of dogmatic sterility
Concluding remarks
1 . The movement from the spontaneous to the dogmatic
2. Handling exegetical problems
3. Structural problems in Faith and Order
4. The way ahead . . . ?
Interpretation of the Second Article 87
Introduction
The task the Faith and Order Commission has set itself in the programme
“Towards the Common Expression of the Apostolic Faith Today” is not, strictly
speaking, the interpretation of the Nicene-Constantinopolitan Creed (which we
shall call, for simplicity’s sake, the Nicene Creed). The Nicene Creed is to serve as
basis and signpost to simplify the task of the representatives of the various member
churches of the WCC as they seek to articulate the contents and structure of their
common faith. The Creed is to act as a guidebook, mapping out the contents to be
discussed together, indicating the sequence of the main doctrinal themes to be dealt
with and — though this goes beyond the function of a guidebook — to be read and
treated with the seriousness it deserves as the only ecumenical Creed of
Christendom. For undoubtedly, among all the creeds adopted by an ecumenical or
other important synod, the Nicene Creed is the only one which has been accepted
as fundamental by all the main churches which have subsequently emerged.
That is not to say that there are not other churches, denominations and church
fellowships which since their inception have deliberately dispensed with the recep-
tion of fixed doctrinal formulations and therefore assign to them no special place
or no place at all, even to the Nicene Creed. When the decision was taken in the
Faith and Order Commission to undertake a study of the Nicene Creed, the
representatives of these denominations were confronted with considerable
problems. This is not the place to discuss these difficulties, but it should not be
forgotten that the representatives of the mainline churches and smaller denomi-
nations who are now involved in the programme do not all attach the same
importance to the task of interpretation they have set themselves. For the Ortho-
dox family of Eastern churches it is axiomatic that any legitimate interpretation of
the faith of Christians must be based on the Nicene Creed and on the other
ecumenical councils, whereas the churches of the West are not as strict in their view
of the binding authority of the Nicene Creed. The way the work has gone so far,
however, shows that fruitful and solid cooperation is still possible even where there
is no fundamental accord on the authority of the Nicene Creed.
Actual work on the programme began with the three consultations, including
the one held at Kottayam, Kerala, on the second article of the Nicene Creed. But
useful work had already been done even before the three consultations set to work,
each concentrating on one of the three articles of the Creed. This preliminary work
was familiar to the members of the three consultations and influenced at least the
defining of the task. In some respects it also affected the formation of the contents.
Thus the members of the small consultation in Kottayam were furnished with a
carefully assembled body of material beginning with texts from the Lausanne
conference of 1927, through Edinburgh 1937, Lund 1952, down to the latest
consultations in Klingenthal 1979, Princeton and Odessa 1981 as well as Rome
1983. These texts were meant to orient the work of the consultation. At the same
time, the Geneva staff of Faith and Order had produced a proposal for the
structuring of the discussion and the texts to be drafted. Once again the importance
of this kind of preparation was demonstrated, since every theological consultation
runs a risk of being vexed by the wealth of themes relevant to its work and
interconnected in such a complex way.
The Kottayam consultation took place from 14 to 22 November 1984. The score
or so of participants were guests of the Malankara Syrian Orthodox Church and
worked in the Sophia Centre in an excellent atmosphere strongly influenced by the
liturgical life of the seminarists as well as the consultation’s own worship, by the
88 One God, One Lord, One Spirit
generous hospitality also of other churches in the city and by the ambiance in India
shortly after the assassination of Indira Gandhi.
In what follows I shall describe the course taken by the interpretation of the
second article of the Nicene Creed from Kottayam down to its most recent revision
in West Berlin and in Potsdam. We shall need to keep in mind the following stages
in the drafting of the text:
A) consultation in Kottayam (14 to 22 November 1984);
B) revision of the A text in Geneva by a small group assisted by the Geneva staff
of Faith and Order (9 to 11 April 1985);
C) the draft for Stavanger, produced in Cret-Berard, June 1985 (this can be
labelled the Cret-Berard I text);
D) the adoption of criticisms and suggestions from the study groups in Stavanger
(August 1985) and individual contributions again in Cret-Berard and Geneva
in March/April 1986 (this can be labelled the Cret-Berard II text);
E) the most recent text (provisional), based on Cret-Berard II, and produced at
the meeting of the Standing Commission in West Berlin (9 to 12 July 1986)
and Potsdam (13 to 19 July 1986).
In the Ecumenical Institute of the University of Heidelberg we have undertaken
a complete comparison of the various texts. The findings of this research cannot be
presented in their entirety here, of course. I shall have to confine myself in this
report to the main themes and the alterations in their presentation. The tripartite
division which was already a feature of the Kottayam text and which has been
adhered to since was helpful here. In each of the three sections of the report, I shall
describe the development from Kottayam to Potsdam in essence, i.e. pointing out
important alterations and additions. The bare two years of the history and
development of the text reflect the movements from the spontaneous and the
unguarded to the doctrinally cautious and systematic style of discourse, in many
respects characteristic of church history and the history of doctrine generally. The
incisive changes and expansions appear in the C and D texts, whereas the E text
(Berlin/Potsdam) seems at first to register few changes or none from the D text, but
then radically alters the D text (37-51 and 68-76). Text E seems on the whole to
have been drafted so unevenly and hastily that the following report can concen-
trate in the main, without much loss, on the changes between A and C and between
A and D.
I. The incarnation — interpreted in terms of the salvation of the world
7. General aspects of the evolution of the text
Structurally, the text produced in Kottayam (A) adopted the proposals made in
Geneva for an arrangement and definition of themes. In A the vere deus — vere
homo , the whole idea of incarnation, was regarded as a fundamental theological
problem and as an essential confession of faith, discussed more or less carefully in
the light of biblical texts and examined in the context of the cultural and religious
situation in India. There was a rich input from the history of doctrine. Already in
B, however, and then still more clearly in C, the doctrinal note begins to
predominate. Various additions are then found in D and the emphasis begins to
shift to the vere deus. In this first section, E is identical to D. The procedure
originally planned, i.e. from the situation to the text of the Creed and from that to
the biblical basis, could not be adhered to completely in the later development. It
was also called in question in Stavanger. This raises an important problem, of
Interpretation of the Second Article 89
course. In the confession of the common faith, should we proceed from the Bible,
via the Creed of the ancient church, to the contemporary situation? Or should we
proceed the other way round? Since text B, “Creed and Biblical Basis” has been
consistently summarized in a first section followed by a second section on “Explic-
ation for Today”. Similarly, since B, in each of these sections there is often a small-
print section headed “Commentary”. This pattern has been adhered to down to
the E text of Berlin/Potsdam. The dominant impression that it gives is that in these
texts it is a question of interpreting the Nicene Creed in form of an exegesis of the
content followed by an “application” for today. It may be questioned whether this
is faithful to the original intention.
2. Input from lectures
Individual lectures given at the Kottayam consultation had been prepared in
advance and designed to serve as a stimulus. The lecture given by Prof Roberta C.
Bondi , an American Methodist, deserves to be singled out for special mention. Her
topic was the vere deus — vere homo in the religious and cultural context of
America. She dealt interestingly with the problems of asserting the “true human-
ity” of Jesus. Being more at home with “non-literal” uses of language in the field of
“religion”, Americans had difficulties in taking the “full humanity” of Jesus
literally. Language in the church is dominated by a docetic trait. The question of
the male identity of Jesus was also discussed. Prof. Bondi, being a patristic scholar,
spoke in a way our hosts found easy to comprehend even if they also had
difficulties in understanding the references to the specifically American situation.
B. H. Jackayya, an Indian Lutheran, dealt with the Asian context of the
Christian life and Christian creed. He adopted an authentically biblical approach
and showed no eagerness to accommodate it syncretistically to Indian notions of
incarnation.
Dr R. Perera , an Anglican from Sri Lanka, raised questions of a deeply political
kind throughout the consultation, specifically in respect of the proclamation of the
gospel and its efficacy. He called for ways of coming to terms with Buddhism which
is the dominant religion in Sri Lanka, though without indicating what these might
be.
Dr V. O. Jathanna of the Church of South India seemed to find it easier to
develop clarifying concepts for distinguishing between Christian views of incar-
nation and corresponding Hindu concepts. The papers read by Prof. Ulrich Kuhn
(Leipzig/Vienna) and Dr M. J. Joseph , Mar Thoma Syrian Church, Kottayam,
related to the subjects discussed in this report under sections II (the passion) and
III (the victory over all powers).
Also important were the comments contributed by Ms Vimla Subaiya of
Calcutta, though these were available in written form to the members of the
consultation only some weeks later. Ms Subaiya is the head of a large boarding
school in Calcutta which has educated influential Indian personalities. She de-
plored the connection of Western influences and colonialism with the gospel and
sought to show the difficulties of proclaiming the gospel in a way which goes to the
very heart of the Hindu tradition. In an impressive way, she combined thoughts
about Jesus, his humanity and his mission, with insights into the need in India to
present the presence and life of the God of the Bible through Christian communi-
ties. Her paper also discussed ways in which the life of the Hindu has been changed
by the influence of Christians. Ms Subaiya also sees the incarnation of God in
Jesus Christ as a challenge to Indian Christians to enter into serious dialogue and
90 One God, One Lord, One Spirit
exchange with Hindus and people of other religions. The work of the consultation
was greatly enriched by the spiritual authority and commanding wisdom of
Prof. V.C. Samuel, of the Orthodox Syrian Church of the East (Kottayam and
Bangalore).
3. The Kottayam text
As we have said, the Kottayam text adopted the tripartite division already
proposed by Geneva and, in the section covered here, deals with the clauses of the
Creed from “We believe in one Lord Jesus Christ . . to . . of the Virgin Mary,
and was made man”. Attention focuses, therefore, on the questions of the
homoousia, the becoming human “for our salvation”, and the motherhood of
Mary. At first there seemed to be few differences over the ancient church formulas
and their interpretation. It was only later that differences arose over the understand-
ing of these texts between the Greek theologian George Dragas (who teaches in
Durham, England) and myself (despite our long-standing acquaintance). The main
point was the appraisal of the truth content of dogmas: are they receptacles or
containers of truth, or do they regulate the discourse of believers concerning the
truth? The discussion led to a very happy understanding. Not surprisingly, it was in
respect of the homoousios and the theotokos , in particular, that the difficulties were
recognized. Although exegetical observations played a considerable part in the
discussions in Kottayam, there were only sporadic references to biblical texts. The
evaluation of biblical and ancient church statements about salvation remained
unequal: are they to be taken to refer to forgiveness, to deliverance from death, or
as having a political reference in the sense of liberation and wholeness of life? In
almost all the discussions, the true humanity of Jesus was viewed in the light of
human suffering on the Indian sub-continent and in other countries where hunger
is predominant. The discussions and also the Kottayam text itself thus acquired a
pastoral dimension which receives less prominence in the later texts, especially C
and D. Feminist concerns as well as questions of marriage and celibacy came under
consideration. The responses of other religions to challenges in the field of social
ethics were also kept in view in the discussions.
4. Additions and deletions ( Cret-Berard I)
Text C expands the preamble (in 2) by adding a long list of questions intended
for clarification. The biblical and historical material (4-12) is tightened up and
systematized. At the same time, the explanatory sections on the Creed (13-16)
assume a more apodictic and academic style. They then came under criticism also
in Stavanger, though without being improved in D and E. Some parts from text A
have dropped out, especially the passages which speak graphically of the true
humanity/humanness of Jesus and refer to his life and ministry.
5. Development in the direction of a doctrinal text (Cret-Berard II and Potsdam)
The list we have made of omissions and additions in D as compared with A and
B is in many respects alarming. That is not to say, of course, that text A was richer
than the later texts but it is clear that the additions in text D (identical in the later
text E) are almost exclusively concerned with scholastic distinctions and add
nothing new in substance. This applies especially to the systematization in 1, the
addition in 2 (already found in C), the explanation of the homoousios in 5, the
abridgment and addition in 7, the substitution of the new paragraphs 8 and 9 for
earlier sections, as well as to additions in 10-15. These sections are clearly
Interpretation of the Second Article 91
concerned to explain synoptic passages (8-11) in respect of the vere deus — vere
homo , as well as Johannine (12) and Pauline passages from the epistles. It can
safely be said, on the whole, that the method of starting in the first place from the
text of the Nicene Creed and then putting questions to the biblical texts has been
maintained. The only question is whether the evident increase of detailed argu-
ments and specific biblical references in texts D and E does not make it necessary to
undertake a far more extensive and comprehensive exegetical, historical and
systematic presentation. In other words, it could well be that a shorter and more
spontaneous text would fulfill the purpose of the Faith and Order project better
than a relatively fuller and more methodical text which falls between two stools,
being beyond the comprehension of those untrained in theology but on the other
hand appearing too meagre for the trained theologian. When we read the D and E
texts, we feel the need to read not ten pages but a substantially longer text on the
relationship of the incarnation to the salvation of the world, one which really
discusses in detail the questions raised. But that would certainly not be what the
Faith and Order project intends.
II. The passion — the suffering of God and humanity
1. General aspects of the evolution of the text
The themes of the texts in this second section of the second article of the Nicene
Creed are: the crucifixion under Pontius Pilate, the death and burial of Jesus. The
language of the Creed here follows the chronology of historical events. The
interpretation of these credal clauses raises all the themes of the doctrine of
reconciliation of classic theology. Whereas in the discussion at Kottayam, a
contribution made by the English theologian Rowan Williams on the question of
the vere deus — vere homo , in which he strongly emphasized the findings of
synoptic and Johannine scholarship, enabled his working group to make a very
detailed report on the first theme, the text on the second theme of the Christo-
logical article is rather shorter and less oriented on biblical exegesis. This need not
necessarily have been so, but resulted from the nature of the discussion, and also
and especially from the relative absence of theological differences at this point.
Prof. Ulrich Kuhn tried to explain the vicarious sufferings and death of Jesus Christ
in a paper but his argument presupposed the situation of German-speaking
theology rather than the ancient church background which was more familiar to
our Orthodox hosts and the Roman Catholic members of the consultation.
The later texts faithfully reflect the A text, though with a number of additions,
which were certainly necessary to make good obvious gaps in the argument of the
A text. On the other hand, the political dimensions still noticeable in Kottayam
take a back seat in the later texts. Even in texts D and E there is no real “theology
of God’s solidarity with human suffering”. In all the texts from A to E we likewise
miss a clear answer to the delicate question of whether, and if so in what sense, it is
possible to speak of the “sacrificial death” of Jesus without subscribing to the
notion of a “payment” to God through the death of Jesus, a concept which finds
hardly any support today. This is a “delicate” question because conservative
evangelicals make it the decisive issue between “orthodox” believers and the rest,
but also because theologians of the Eastern Orthodox Church, as well as those
of the Roman Catholic Church, employ the terminology of sacrifice without
acknowledging that they are speaking metaphorically.
92 One God, One Lord, One Spirit
2. Sensitivity to the cultural dimension
One impressive feature in Kottayam was the constant awareness of and re-
ference to the cultural and social problems of the Indian sub-continent and
questions arising therefrom. It is impossible to divorce the theme of the sufferings
of Jesus, God’s solidarity with humanity’s sufferings in the sufferings of Jesus
Christ, the abandonment by God which Jesus experienced, and the gospel of his
death, from the despair and sufferings of human beings on this continent and in
many other parts of the world. Theological statements about the passion of Christ
remain abstract, hackneyed and insipid unless they bring out clearly the profound
inner connections that exist here. Whereas until quite recently European churches
and European theology were represented by people who had first-hand experience
of human suffering in the Second World War, in the last ten to twenty years or so
the voice of those who represent the suffering and impotence of people in the
countries of the third and fourth worlds has been increasingly in evidence in official
ecumenical circles. In the discussions in Kottayam, therefore, the different ap-
proaches to and methods of dealing with all this suffering were also considered
explicitly: the victory over suffering by way of negation and the striving for
extinction, as in the ancient Asian traditions, and, in contrast to that, the Old and
New Testament message of God’s participation in suffering with a view to victory
over it and newness of life. Here there are real differences between the biblically
based faith and some important Eastern religions which are otherwise in many
respects similar to the biblical tradition. Recognition of this fact strongly in-
fluenced the discussions in Kottayam even if it did not find its way clearly enough
into the Kottayam text.
3. Difficulties over method in Kottayam
Brief reference must once again be made to the substantial differences between
the representatives of Eastern Orthodoxy and those of Western theology. In
respect of method, it is not at all clear in our ecumenical work in general whether
we should start from established dogmas (e.g. the dogmatic formulas of the
ecumenical councils) or whether we should retrace and re-examine the doctrinal
development in the light of the biblical evidence. It is really not a question of the
sola scriptura principle (so often made central) in opposition to the strategy of
beginning with the Tradition or placing it on an equal footing with the Bible. In
contemporary systematic theology this is no longer the real or the realistic
alternative. The question is rather whether we decide to approach the great
questions of the faith by arguing on the basis of the ancient texts (i.e. the Bible and
the ancient church Creeds) or, on the contrary, on the basis of our contemporary
questionings. As theologians, are we to “make the Bible relevant for today” or
should we not rather make present events, developments and questions “relevant”
for the rudiments and bases of our faith and our history, which leads from
Abraham through Jesus’ sufferings, death and resurrection down to ourselves?
These difficulties about method were discussed in Kottayam without any firm
agreement being reached.
4. Additions and alterations before Stavanger
Whereas text A begins with theological questions arising from the Nicene Creed
and only afterwards turns to the biblical witness, the C text begins with biblical and
historical references. The specification of biblical passages must necessarily be very
selective. The pro nobis is strongly underlined. In none of the texts from A to E do
Interpretation of the Second Article 93
we find any explanation of what it really means to assert that a man who died two
thousand years ago really died “for us”. This shows once more the degree to which
these ecumenical texts are already operating within a Christian system of thought
and how frequently they retreat from basic and quite essential questions, regarding
them as already solved.
Nor is it clear how far Christians can believe and confess that “the death of
Jesus” was “willed by God” even though it is clearly stated that Christians have
always opposed the interpretation of the death of Jesus as a tragedy. The text does
not bring out clearly enough that the death of Jesus was not a private death but
that his burial was a “private” burial, and that therefore his burial was meant to
confirm the reality of his death and was not as such vicarious in character. These
facts, though clear to biblical scholars and even to systematic theologians today,
have not found any reflection in the texts. Towards the conclusion of their
remarks, all the texts — including the E text (55 and 56) — show a tendency to
celebrate Jesus’ death as a victory over evil forces. In other words, the death of
Jesus is quite clearly interpreted in the light of Easter; as a result of this, it seems
almost to acquire a docetic character in the C, D and E texts. The statements about
this victory achieved through the crucifixion of Jesus are disappointingly stereo-
typed in all the texts and almost nowhere explanatory.
5. Unanswered exegetical questions
Most of the difficulties have already been mentioned implicitly. Did the death of
Jesus involve a sacrifice? How are we to explain the ambivalent position of Judas
as, on the one hand, a traitor and, on the other hand, a “go-between” or deliverer?
To what extent is it certain that the death of Jesus was not a “tragedy”? Was his
death, namely, his readiness to accept it, a prayer, a “self-sacrifice” or an offering
in the sense of a gift which human beings are to bring to God? What have we to say
about the exegetically demonstrable differences between the Pauline letters and, for
example, the First Epistle of John? In respect of the death of Jesus, how is the
implicit Christology of Hebrews related to the Pauline letters and the Synoptic
Gospels? And lastly: to what extent are we to interpret the death of Jesus as
qualitatively different from the death of Mahatma Gandhi or Martin Luther King?
Does the difference lie exclusively in the resurrection or is it also — as British
theology and certainly large sections of the American church tradition, too, would
want to maintain — in the life of Jesus that the difference lies? These questions have
only been touched on in passing in the texts.
6. The influence of the work in Stavanger
As a result mainly of the criticisms contributed by Prof. Raymond Brown , the
American Roman Catholic New Testament scholar, a whole series of exegetical
statements in texts B and C were called in question. His exegetical comments
referred in particular to the true humanity of Jesus, to the recognition of his unique
authority by those who heard him, and, generally, to an anti-docetic interpretation
of the relevant biblical passages. From a theological standpoint, Brown empha-
sized the connection between the raising of Jesus and justification and offered a
summary of the findings of scholarship, already familiar to European and especial-
ly to German-speaking scholars, on “becoming new” and “new life” through the
resurrection of Jesus. The critical report of the working group which criticized the
C text (Cret-Berard I) adopted Brown’s exegetical desiderata as well as the
theological criticisms made by George Dragas and myself. The working group
94 One God, One Lord, One Spirit
called for a complete revision of this C text in respect of the original purpose and
outlined a fresh draft. As sequence for the revision, it also proposed the following
steps: firstly, explanatory comments on the text of the Creed; then reference to
biblical passages; and finally, an examination of the application for today. These
proposals have now been adopted in texts D and E, although the disadvantages of
text C complained of in Stavanger have only partly been remedied. Texts D and E
are terribly doctrinal, include very little discussion of practical questions and
problems and on the whole strive for an internal theological coherence which may
be praiseworthy but is in certain ways inherently tedious in its effect.
7. Additions in Cret-Berard II
While, therefore, texts D and E do contain some clarifications and improve-
ments in comparison with the earlier texts, they have on the whole a colourless
effect and the truth is replaced by a whole set of platitudes. That may seem a harsh
verdict but one has only to read §§37 to 56 of the D text (the draft for Potsdam) to
wonder whether this is really the way we Christians want to speak of this central
doctrine, i.e. that Jesus suffered and died for us. We are not blaming anyone for
this; but it is nonetheless lamentable that nuanced figures of speech arrived at in
joint ecumenical efforts should seem to move in the direction of a common
denominator which simply consists of a stringing together of conventional tradi-
tional Christian phrases. Nothing is “untrue” in these phrases, but little is true in
them and little is clear. What is meant, for example, when it is stated in E.55 that:
“The suffering and the apparent scandal of the crucifixion of Jesus exposes the
unjust powers of this world”? Or again, that “the crucifixion of Jesus exposes the
cruelty of human beings and of the dominant religious and political powers”? Or
that “the justice of God condemns the injustice of all power that excludes and
murders”?
III. The victory over all powers
7. General aspects of the evolution of the text
This third part of the section of the text of the second article deals with the
clauses on the resurrection, the ascension into heaven and the sitting at the
Father’s right hand, the return to judge the living and the dead, and the doxo-
logical clause about the kingdom that has no end. It is little wonder that, already in
Kottayam, these clauses of the Creed strongly encouraged the use of doxological
language. The Orthodox hosts and the mere fact that they were more or less in a
majority in Kottayam made it natural for particular attention to be paid to the
importance of this doxological style. This note is still recognizable in the later texts
even if it seems somewhat diminished in the D and E texts. The Kottayam text had
been drafted by Janet Crawford, the Anglican theologian from New Zealand, and
myself, and accepted at a pinch by the Orthodox and Roman Catholic members of
the consultation. The difficulty lay in the fact that in our text we referred to the
double language of Paul: in 1 Timothy 3:16, Paul is clearly addressing himself to
Hellenistic readers, whereas in 1 Corinthians 15 he clearly has his eyes on readers
familiar with the “scriptures” to which he can appeal. The result is that the
resurrection is spoken of in different terms in each case. This double language was
important to us in Kottayam but is only indirectly reflected in the later texts. In the
later versions, there are numerous biblical references — indeed, by far the richest
citation of the biblical evidence — so that what is said loses in clarity. This can
Interpretation of the Second Article 95
easily be seen by reading §§62-65 of the E text where the reader is confronted with a
whole set of biblical references but not with a statement or a confession of faith.
2. Regional and confessional conditions
What the Indian Christians were able to tell us in Kottayam about Hindu
conceptions of resurrection and eternal life was of some importance. As was made
very clear by Dr Jathanna in particular, these indigenous Christians clearly have to
contend with a widespread tolerance in the religious context of Hinduism, a
willingness to accept watered-down statements on resurrection and awakening.
But what does it really mean to affirm that “Jesus was raised, awakened, from
death”? In addition to these culturally caused difficulties of articulating the
Christian faith, there are also confessional differences among Christians them-
selves. Whereas it is well known that the Eastern Orthodox Church traditions are
accustomed to celebrating the resurrection in their doxology as a signal and
evident “victory”, in Western theology our discourse about the resurrection is
defined more in terms of mystery or the veiling of a real act which it is impossible to
present in human terms. On the other hand, those theologians who argue solely
from the standpoint of political or liberation theology (Dr Perera of Sri Lanka
represented this standpoint) tend to see the account of Jesus’ resurrection more as
a symbol of the liberation of the oppressed. An ecumenically responsible Christian
theology really must insist on clarity here!
3. The Kottayam text
The Kottayam text can admittedly be regarded as a legitimate interpretation of
the third part of the second article of the Nicene Creed only in a rudimentary sense.
The doxological language, i.e. that mode of speaking which remembers that in all
our speaking God is present and addressed, is to the forefront here. Assertory or
apodictic statements have been avoided. Even the question of “Christ’s lordship”,
therefore, is on the one hand a theme of doxological and expectant utterance but
also, on the other hand, touches in a very direct way on the question of good or
bad “rulers” in the contemporary world. In any case, the pronouncedly eschato-
logical change in the language about lordship in the Nicene Creed demanded
consideration. Is the “rule” of Christ to take place only after his “return in glory”,
i.e. after the “judgment”, and are we, therefore, to think in terms of and to accept a
chronological process? Or in what sense can we already speak today of God’s rule
over the world in Christ? These very important questions were certainly touched
on but in no way answered. Yet they are of quite central importance for our search
for a common confession of the apostolic faith today. It seems to me that we are
not entitled in our project to avoid commenting on this central issue. It is also quite
essential that we should tackle, and provide a responsible answer to, the specific
concrete questions concerning the “judgment” which are repeatedly posed in the
various churches. Only in a very incomplete way did that happen in Kottayam.
4. Later changes
The effort to come to grips with these questions is already recognizable in the B
and C texts but what is said on them still remains extremely vague. A typological
listing of the possible variations within the Christian tradition is the most that is
attempted in many cases. The device of inserting brief commentaries, a method
introduced from the B text onwards, is generally retained and should also continue
to be useful in the further revision of the texts. The detailed commentaries so far
96 One God, One Lord, One Spirit
formulated deal with some aspects of the difficulties of the themes in question here,
but are still not by a long chalk a “common expression” of the apostolic faith. It
may also be that a consensus in these questions is not possible; in that case, this
must be frankly stated.
It seems to me that a whole set of individual, social-ethical and political
questions are simultaneously involved in Christian discourse about the resurrec-
tion. There is firstly the question of individual life “after death” which is such a
problem for us in our pastoral work, and then, of course, secondly, the question of
how far “new life” is an indicator or a reflection of resurrection, in the medical
field, for example, where cures, in a certain sense, are equivalent to something
“new” emerging from the “old”. What is a cure if not a sign of revival? And in the
field of social ethics and politics: when love replaces hate, reconciliation conflict,
what is that if not a sign of new life from the old, of resurrection from the dead?
How can we establish a correlation between, on the one hand, something new
which we human beings create in the power and with the help of the Spirit of God
and, on the other hand, the resurrection and new rule of Christ? If these questions
remain unanswered, the statements of our Faith and Order studies also remain
trite and hackneyed. Another urgent requirement is a thorough discussion between
the Marxist vision of the “new humanity” and the kainos anthropos of the New
Testament. It is impossible to keep the resurrection of Jesus and the establishment
of the rule of God as confessed in the ancient church Creed in some separate self-
contained history hovering above the realities of our world and life. On that point,
all the participants in the consultations were in basic agreement, yet the texts they
have produced reflect this insight only vaguely and very imperfectly.
5. Open fronts in spite of dogmatic sterility
At all events, I came away from the Stavanger Faith and Order Conference with
the firm impression that, in spite of the dogmatic sterility once again evident in the
case of almost all the representatives of the different denominations, the fronts, i.e.
the real questions, still remained open. That is a good sign and a real stimulus to
continued ecumenical effort. What seems to me much less encouraging is the way
things have developed since Stavanger. In the D and E texts I find a suggestion that
more questions had been tidied up and settled than can legitimately be the case
after the experience in Stavanger. Dogmatic sterility is more to be feared than open
fronts. By “sterility” I mean the readiness to arrange formulas recognized as
correct in such a way as to display as few open fronts as possible. The effort to do
this seems to me not to qualify as ecumenically responsible. We cannot be content,
of course, merely to identify fronts and to list the main questions. But every
theological answer we try to provide should at the same time presuppose as such
the freedom both to pose fresh questions and, in relation to other confessional
traditions which are unfamiliar to us, to recognize and accept as valid new insights
and even new tasks.
Concluding remarks
1. The movement from the spontaneous to the dogmatic
It is not to be taken as a complaint if, in conclusion and to sum up, I register my
impression that, on our way from preparatory studies over many years down to the
beginning of our Faith and Order project in Kottayam and on to the final version
of the texts in Berlin/Potsdam, the trend has been away from the spontaneous to
Interpretation of the Second Article 97
the dogmatic. This reflects a movement typical of church history generally: a
movement of consolidation and bifurcation or ramification, of explanation and
clarification or intellectualization, which, while perfectly intelligible in itself, is
nevertheless open to criticism. It would be most regrettable if the continuation of
our project were to be characterized by a permanent hardening in this sense. Little
good could then be forthcoming from the final product of our labours. For whom
are our texts really intended? Are we yet sufficiently clear on this point? Are we to
address the teachers of our churches? In that case, a precise and unambiguous type
of language would be appropriate. Or are we to address the ministers, pastors and
catechists, a much wider audience? Once again we have to use a different style of
language. These questions need clearing up, it seems to me.
2. Handling exegetical problems
It seems to me that, in the draft texts so far, from A to E, the use of biblical
references is characterized by the stringing together of biblical passages. There are
very few passages which are really analyzed exegetically. In most cases it is
assumed that their interpretation is more or less clear. But in many instances, this is
simply not the case. Possible ways of treating the biblical reference would be: the
quotation of scholarly works, the listing of variant interpretations of vital biblical
texts, or, again, the attempt to provide an actual brief interpretation of passages
cited. The procedure adopted so far, however, seems to me on the whole question-
able. No one, surely, is going to deny that only in rare cases is it theologically
defensible simply to list biblical references.
3. Structural problems in Faith and Order
Without wishing to make any radical criticism, I would like to register my
disquiet at the fact that texts which have been produced in consultations lasting
more than a week each have subsequently been completely revised by small
committees in which theologians who themselves for the most part were not
members of the said consultations have played an active role. I have doubts as to
the advisability or wisdom of continuing to employ this method in the future. Of
course, every theologian can correct, criticize and improve things in any text, can
supplement it and in every case be able to give reasonable grounds for proceeding
in this way. But is there still any real continuity if jointly produced texts are revised,
shortened and expanded by others at a later date? In this connection, mention
should also be made of the problem which arises from the separation between the
elected members of the Faith and Order Plenary Commission and the Standing
Commission. If the authority to decide rests ultimately with the members of the
Standing Commission, can the Faith and Order Plenary Commission be anything
more than a “sounding board”? There could be no objection to this if the members
of the Plenary Commission had not been chosen as such by their churches. If they
were appointed simply as supplementary commentators, that would put a different
complexion on things. The development of the texts we have discussed here from
Kottayam to Potsdam illustrates perfectly the structural difficulties attending the
whole work of the Faith and Order Commission.
4. The way ahead . . . ?
It seems unlikely to me that the E text (Berlin/Potsdam) has any real future as a
preliminary draft for the “common expression of the apostolic faith” we seek.
Certainly it is possible that it will be accepted by theologians of the different
98 One God, One Lord, One Spirit
denominations, but I do not believe that it can constitute the basis for the
document we want to produce. The Faith and Order project of a common
confession of the apostolic faith by the representatives of all the churches together
is, I believe, historically unique, and we should do our utmost to carry this project
to a conclusion in a responsible way. It may be that the texts so far produced can
serve as preliminary studies on the way to the achievement of a text, rich in content
and consensus building, a text in which all the churches can recognize themselves
and their faith.
PART III
The Third Article
biJiA biiriT griT
'
,
We Believe in the Holy Spirit,
the Church and the
Life of the World to Come
An Ecumenical Explication
Report of a Faith and Order Consultation
held at Chantilly, France, 3-10 January 1985
A. The Holy Spirit
I. Belief in the Holy Spirit
II. The Lord
III. Giver of Life
IV. Procession from the Father
V. Worship and glorification
VI. The Spirit and the prophets
B. The one, holy, catholic and apostolic church
I. The church, local and universal community
II. The church in Trinitarian perspective
a) The church, people of God
b) The church, body of Christ
c) The church, communion of saints in the Spirit
III. The church as eucharistic, transforming and eschatological community
IV. The one, holy, catholic and apostolic church
C. The resurrection of the body and the life of the world to come
I. The church as a community of hope
II. Jesus Christ — the hope of the world
III. The oneness and wholeness of Christian hope
a) Kingdom of God
b) Resurrection
c) New heaven and earth
IV. Living out our hope
102 One God, One Lord, One Spirit
A. THE HOLY SPIRIT
1. Faith in the Holy Spirit always belongs with faith in God and in Jesus Christ.
To believe “in one God the Father Almighty” and “in one Lord Jesus Christ, the
only-begotten Son of God . . is to believe also “in the Holy Spirit, the Lord and
Life-giver”. The Holy Spirit is never experienced, confessed or conceived of apart
from the one God and his Son and word, whose Spirit he is. In turn, it is through
the Spirit that we believe in the Father and the Son. He it is who gives us
knowledge of God and his will for us (John 16:12-15; 1 Cor. 2:10-16).
2. Faith in the Holy Spirit also always includes the church of God and of Christ,
the confession of one baptism for the remission of sins, and the expectation of the
resurrection of the dead and the life of the age to come whose very content as the
kingdom of God in Christ is “righteousness and peace and joy in the Holy Spirit”
(Rom. 14:17).
God, whose eternal plan is to unite all things in heaven and on earth in Christ,
has made his Son “the head over all things for the church which is his body, the
fullness of him who wills all in all” — in the Spirit (cf. Eph. l:22f.).
Through his mighty acts of creation, redemption and sanctification by his Son
and Spirit, God fills all things with himself and fully opens his divine being and life
to all creatures to become “partakers of the divine nature” (2 Pet. 1:4; cf. Eph.
4:10). In this way believers enter into communion with the Triune God. For this
reason the saints have testified that where the Holy Spirit is, there is the church and
every grace of God in Christ; that where the Holy Spirit is, there is God’s kingdom
which is fullness of life in Jesus Christ the King.
I. Belief in the Holy Spirit
3. Belief in the Holy Spirit is an act of confession which witnesses to a living
experience ever to be renewed. It is testimony to the conviction that God’s own
Spirit is present in the world, living and acting in the community of believers who
confess Jesus as “Lord”, and cry “Abba” to the most high God, and who, thereby,
receive the Spirit’s varied gifts, including the charism of discerning spirits inside
and outside the church, “to see whether they are from God” (1 John 4: Ilf.).
Commentary. Christians differ in their understanding concerning the
activity of the Holy Spirit outside the church. While some would claim that
“whatever is true, whatever is honourable, whatever is just” (Phil. 4:8) in the
life and actions of non-Christians and even unbelievers is of God’s Holy
Spirit, others say that the sovereignty of the Spirit in history and in people
who are unfamiliar with the gospel is hidden from our eyes and can neither be
identified nor interpreted in any specific way. In any case, all agree that
“there is no other name under heaven ... by which we may receive sal-
vation” (Acts 4:12) than that of Jesus Christ.
God’s spirit is holy with the wondrous holiness of the God whose innermost
being and life is incomparable to anything in creation. Yet in the Holy Spirit whom
God pours out on all flesh through Jesus “the Holy One of God” (Mark 1 :24) who
is revealed as Christ and Lord through what he suffers, creatures can actually fulfill
the commandment of God who says: “You shall be holy, for I am holy” (Lev.
1 1 : 44-45; 1 Pet. 1 : 16). To share God’s holiness, without which no person can find
life and salvation, is a gracious gift concretely realized in different ways: through
We Believe in the Holy Spirit 103
active work for goodness, justice and peace as well as through patience, endurance
and suffering.
4. The Holy Spirit is God’s very breath; the living and life-creating power, truth
and love of his divine person perfectly imaged in his only-begotten Son. God’s
Spirit is not one of the many spirits which inhabit the universe. Nor is God’s Spirit
called “spirit” in contrast to “matter”. God’s Spirit is not only opposed to all sorts
of occult spiritualism, but to every form of material and spiritual evil.
The Holy Spirit of God reveals the spiritual dimension of everything material as
he is concretely present in every element of creation, in people’s bodies and spirits
and souls (cf. Ps. 139:7-10; 1 Thess. 5:23). Through the Holy Spirit all matter is
sanctified by God’s grace, while apart from him all spiritual things become carnal
and dead.
II. The Lord
5. The Holy Spirit is the Lord. Being a divine person, he takes his place with
God the Lord ( Theos Kyrios) and Christ the Lord ( Christos Kyrios).
In confessing the Spirit as Lord (the septuagint translation of YHWH , the divine
name), the church acclaims his divinity, the same divinity as that of the Father and
the Son, and acknowledges his lordship over all creation and history.
Commentary : The Creed does not call the Holy Spirit “God” as it does the
Son when it refers to him as “true God of true God”. Neither does the Creed
use the term homoousios to describe the identity of divinity between the Holy
Spirit and God the Father, and so of the Son, as later theology does. Some
reasons for this, which are of course open to further study and debate, are the
desire to employ scriptural words; to avoid confusion of the Holy Spirit with
the Son of God through the use of the same terms; and to make it easier for
the Creed to be understood and accepted in the churches. In using the title
“Lord” for the Holy Spirit, however, the Creed affirms that the Spirit’s
divinity is exactly that of the Father and the Son which was defended through
the use of the term homoousios. Thereby the church establishes its doctrine of
the Holy Trinity of three divine persons (or hypostases) — Father, Son and
Holy Spirit — in the perfect unity of one and the same divine being ( ousia ).
The Spirit’s lordship is that of divine magnificence and glory which inspires
admiration, adoration and obedience from all who receive him. It is not a lordship
of brute force, oppressive power or tyrannous manipulation. It is on the contrary a
lordship which frees all creation and grants “the glorious liberty of the children of
God” (cf. Rom. 8:21). Evil spirits possess. Spiritless flesh enslaves. Wicked powers
oppress, dominate, manipulate and exploit. The Spirit of God and Christ liberates
people, even in the most oppressive and enslaving of human conditions; and
empowers them to resist the evil and to work to overcome it. For “the Lord is the
Spirit, and where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is freedom” (2 Cor. 3:17).
III. The Giver of Life
6. The Holy Spirit is the “Giver of Life”. He comes forth from the Father as the
“life-creator” (zoopoiori). Without him nothing would be alive (cf. Gen. 1:2).
Humankind itself, all living creatures and the living earth at the heart of all that
exists are alive because of the Spirit of God. So it is that Christians reverence all
life, especially all human life; and they resist all that brings death or diminishes the
value of any human being. In turn they respect the life of all living creatures, the
104 One God, One Lord, One Spirit
animals, the birds of the air, and fish of the sea on which they depend for their very
survival; and they resist destruction and abuse of the earth, its rivers and seas and
the skies above it. Life always remains a gift of God. As he has given his Spirit, he
alone can take it away (cf. Ps. 104:29-30).
The Spirit also creates, brings to birth, the new life of Christ. Because he is given,
human beings are born anew, recreated; and the whole order of existence is
transformed into the first fruits of the new creation, the beginnings of the new
heaven and the new earth (cf. Rom. 8:11; 2 Cor. 5:17). Through the gift of the
Spirit baptism becomes the ever-fertile womb of a Spirit-enlivened church, the
living body of Christ. Like a mother the Spirit brings to birth new children of the
Father, in the one Son whose own humanity he has already filled with life.
Commentary : While agreeing on the motherly actions of the Holy Spirit,
Christians disagree as to how this feminine image is to be further developed.
Because God’s Spirit ( Ru’ah ) is feminine in Hebrew and related languages,
some contend that the Holy Spirit must be considered somehow as a
“feminine principle” in God, and be referred to as “she”. Others, however,
affirm the scriptural imagery with the symbolic analogy and the use of
metaphorical language, while retaining the masculine gender “he” as tradi-
tionally used. The common usage of the languages of Commission members
presently determines the gender employed when references are made to the
Holy Spirit in Faith and Order documents.
The Spirit’s gift of life, the life of Christ himself, enables Christians to truly live
together as the one body of Christ, and to be bearers of life, Christ-bearers, to all
people. So it is that Christians seek to nourish this life through the word and the
eucharist, and through the service of others, through which the Spirit fills them
ever anew. And in turn they need to struggle against everything which inhibits the
free flow of this life into themselves and its manifestation within the church and in
the world.
Just as the life-giving Spirit provided manifold gifts for his people Israel, so he
also pours out an abundance of charisma for the building-up of the church and for
service in the world, such as teaching, prophecy, healing, miracles, tongues and the
discernment of spirit (cf. 1 Cor. 12:4-11, 27-30).
IV. Procession from the Father
7. The Holy Spirit “proceeds from the Father”. He is breathed forth by the
Father. He is the life-giving breath, the Spirit of God. The Father is also the Father
of the Son and so the Spirit who is breathed forth is always in relation to the Son,
and is so even in the breathing forth.
Western Christians have used the phrase filioque to express this latter relation.
Eastern Christians have found most interpretations of its meaning unacceptable
and so have stressed that the Spirit proceeds from the Father alone. Both have
wished to be faithful to the affirmation of the Nicene-Constantinopolitan Creed
that the Spirit proceeds from the Father. On that affirmation all Christians can
agree.
Commentary'. Because East and West are so different. Eastern and Wes-
tern Christians have come to express the one faith they share, even their
understanding of the one original Creed they share, in differing ways. On the
foundation of this common faith they must find a way to explain these
We Believe in the Holy Spirit 105
different understandings to each other that is both faithful to their orginal
common confession, and is scrupulous in its concern to demand nothing of
the other which would be for them a betrayal of their vision of the original
common faith. This process of explaining and learning from each other will
take time but it has begun (e.g. Klingenthal, France, 1978-791; Riva del
Garda, Italy, 19842). It has to be possible because the same Holy Spirit who
“proceeds from the Father” gives life to the faith of Christians in both the
East and the West. As they, through his life-giving power, proceed on this
path of mutual understanding they should confess together and in their own
churches the Creed as their forefathers did, in the original form.
The issue of the procession of the Holy Spirit is relevant even for those Christians
who have never placed much importance on the Creeds of the early church.
Without a profound understanding of the relation between the Father, the Son and
the Holy Spirit, Christians might be forced to endure again the crises which led the
early church to formulate the Creed in the first place. These may not take the same
form as the early debates but because the Trinity is at the heart of the church’s life
crises inevitably arise, e.g. about the work of the Holy Spirit in the community,
which can only be avoided or resolved through a common profession of the one
Trinitarian faith with all its consequences for the life of the church.
V. Worship and glorification
8. The Holy Spirit of God “together with the Father and the Son, is worshipped
and glorified”. He is the Lord. So it is that the most basic Christian prayer is glory
and praise of the Triune God. So it is that spirituality is only fully and maturely
Christian when it is Trinitarian. So it is that Christians in their daily life and
especially in their worship pray that the Father send his Spirit that they might be
more completely conformed to the life of Christ the Son (cf. Rom. 8:29). In turn
they reject any claims about the activity of the Holy Spirit in the lives of individuals
or communities which would have him acting independently of the Father or the
Son. Furthermore churches which have not placed much emphasis on Trinitarian
spirituality, or prayed for the gift and action of the Holy Spirit ( epiklesis ), are now
rediscovering this deepest dimension of Christian life and worship. Christians,
therefore, glorify the Triune God through prayer, common worship and the daily
service which is their acceptable sacrifice (cf. Rom. 12:1).
VI. The Spirit and the prophets
9. The Holy Spirit “has spoken through the prophets”. In this affirmation the
church insists that God’s Spirit who anointed Jesus and is given to his disciples is
the same Spirit who anointed the prophets of Israel and inspired the canonical
Hebrew scriptures. The Jewish people have not ceased through the centuries to
listen and respond to God’s Spirit speaking through these scriptures. Christians
likewise, continue to be confronted by the Spirit through the prophets. In this,
hope is given that the Spirit of God will draw both communities together by his
continuing activity (Rom. 11:29-32).
Commentary : When the church fathers confessed that the Holy Spirit
“spoke through the prophets”, they thereby rejected any schools of thought
among Christians which would deny that the God of the prophets is the same
God as the Father of Jesus Christ.
106 One God, One Lord, One Spirit
In our time many Christians have been led to reconsider the traditional
attitude of the church towards the people of Jewish faith. It is recognized that
the Hebrew prophets announced an eschatological coming of the Messiah
who above all would renew the face of the earth. In view of this proclamation
the Messiahship of Jesus may be understood as the beginning of its full
realization, and Christians and Jews might be able to come nearer to each
other by studying their common expectation of the eschatological Messiah,
as prophesied to both Jews and Christians.
10. Christians believe that Jesus is the fulfilment of Old Testament prophecy
and is himself God’s anointed prophet upon whom the Holy Spirit rested in a
definitive way (cf. Acts 3:22-23).
Breathing upon his disciples and giving them the Holy Spirit, Jesus transmitted
to his church the power of prophecy (cf. Rom. 12:6). Every gift which he gives,
prophecy or movement of renewal he inspires, is related to what God has done in
his Spirit-filled Christ.
Christians still receive prophetic gifts today. Churches must remain open to these
gifts which are expressed in manifold ways, such as in those who proclaim a specific
word of God in situations of oppression and injustice as well as in those who by the
charismatic gift of the Spirit edify the church in its worship and service. The
suffering of prophetic witnesses will always be part of the church’s life and service
to the world. “The blood of the martyrs is the seed of the church.’’ Those who by
the power of the Holy Spirit remain “faithful unto death” will receive “the crown
of life” (Rev. 2:11).
Not everyone who claims prophetic gifts, however, is necessarily inspired by the
Holy Spirit. The gift of discernment remains to be exercised by believers since “the
spirits of prophets are subject to prophets” (1 Cor. 14:32; cf. also 14:22).
Commentary. In the history of the church different forms of prophecy
occurred. In the New Testament scriptures references are made to prophets
and prophetesses (1 Cor. 12:28-29; Acts 15:32, 21:9-10). Later history tells
of wondering prophets (Didache), and of prophecy in congregations (Her-
nias, Irenaeus, a.o.). It was probably the Montanist crisis (2nd century)
which dealt a heavy blow to charismatic prophecy in the church which for the
fathers who wrote the Creed was no longer a living reality. After this time
prophecy was largely a marginalized, though often recurring phenomenon in
church history unitl the twentieth century, when it has become strongly
advocated by apostolic and pentecostal churches on the one hand, and the
charismatic renewal movements in traditional churches on the other.
B. THE ONE HOLY, CATHOLIC AND APOSTOLIC CHURCH
I. The church, local and universal community
1. The church is the community, local and universal, of those people who
adhere to Christ by faith, are baptized for the forgiveness of sins, desire to
persevere in a life nourished by the word of God and the sacraments, and are
consecrated to the witness and service of the gospel in a communion of love.
The church has its origin in the Trinity. It is “the people united by the unity of
the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit”.3 The Father wills it as the people of
We Believe in the Holy Spirit 107
his possession; the Son consecrates it as his living body; the Spirit gathers it into a
unique communion.
The church was founded by Christ, the word of God. It was built on the
foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ being himself the corner-
stone (Eph. 2:20). It was made manifest in the Lord’s Supper (Luke 22:7-20), on
the cross (John 19:25-35), in the resurrection (John 20:19-23) and at Pentecost
(Acts 2: 1-4). It shares and continues the work of Christ on earth. It is the creation
and the vehicle of the Holy Spirit in the world.
Commentary : We have discovered that we sometimes have difficulties in
receiving each other’s statements about the church simply because we use the
word “ church ” differently.
In the Eastern Christian tradition this concept is so predominantly linked
with the theological mystery of being-the-church that the perfection of the
church, known only by faith, dominates the orientation and renders it
practically meaningless to speak of a church sinful, imperfect, in need of
change etc. To voice the generally accepted conviction that the individual
Christians of whom the church is composed are people who claim no
perfection of their own, then demands a language which permits no stain to
fall on the church as “church”.
In the Western churches it is more common to link statements of faith and
statements of observation — the church as theological mystery, and the
church as sociological event — in a dialectical language of saint-and-sinner,
thus expressing the tension of faith and observation in one unified con-
ceptuality.
This difference of language certainly implies less of substantial theological
disagreement than it immediately seems to, but does it at the same time
indicate some wide-ranging difference in the basic direction of ecclesiological
orientation?
II. The church in Trinitarian perspective
a) The church, people of God
2. Throughout scripture, God chooses a special people to serve with and for
God to the benefit of all peoples. Precisely this is the vocation given to the church
in Jesus Christ. In bringing the world the glad tidings of salvation in Jesus Christ,
the church does not isolate itself from its environment. Rather, in its particularity,
it serves God in solidarity with the whole of humankind.
The New Testament takes up and elaborates the Old Testament concept of a
“chosen generation, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, a peculiar people”, in
applying it to the church and its calling to “show forth the praises of him who has
called it out of darkness into his marvellous light” (1 Pet. 2:5, 9; cf Ex. 19:6),
linking thus the ekklesia of the new covenant with its forerunner and model the
kahal of the old. Both are chosen to serve in their turn as agents of God’s will for
humankind as a whole.
Through baptism and faith people are incorporated into the church as God’s
people. At the same time it should be borne in mind that only the Last Day, which
makes all hidden things visible, will make clear who did really belong to the people
of God and who did not. The borders of the church are finally known only to God.
108 One God, One Lord, One Spirit
b ) The church, body of Christ
3. Each of the several images in which the New Testament speaks of the church
(God’s people, building, vine, etc.) has its own importance, but particular attention
has in the tradition been given to that of the body of Christ (Rom. 1 2 : 4f . ; 1 Cor.
12:12-27; Eph. l:22f.). This image underscores the intimate organic relationship
between the living Lord and all those receiving their living hope from him, and also
the integral unity of the community of believers, such as it is constituted in and by
him. At the same time it underscores the basic importance of his incarnation,
passion and resurrection (his bodiliness) for the salvation of the world and recalls
the constitutive role of eucharistic presence (his body and blood) in Christian life.
The very fruit of salvation: koinonia renewed and re-established between God and
humankind, between human persons and between humans and the world of
creation, is brought about, and is manifested, by the holy mystery of the body of
Christ.
The church as Christ’s living body is local and universal, particular and
inclusive. Called to serve the Lord through the diversity of its members, the church
embodies God’s creative word as vehicle of his very presence. The royal priesthood
of all the faithful and the diverse ordained ministries are serving God in the body of
Christ by the power of the Holy Spirit. It thus reflects the active presence of the
Trinity in the world, and the event of the incarnation as the event opening up this
presence in its essential salutary importance.
c) The church, communion of saints in the Spirit
4. The church as the koinonia of saints unites the faithful of every age and of all
places in one fellowship of prayer, praise, and sharing of suffering and joy. In the
New Testament as well as in the Old Testament the Spirit of God is particularly
underscored as God’s creative power, bringing forth new life, in the world but also
in the community of worship and adoration. The work of the Spirit is intimately
connected with divine promise and thus with the word of God and with the
guidance given by this word to God’s people. The Spirit brings forth God’s
congregation and equips its members for their service of thanksgiving and praise.
At the same time the Spirit acts with divine freedom, and does not restrict divine,
renewing creation to events expected or foreseen by God’s people.
All ages, including our own, contribute to the hosts of witnesses and martyrs
who in their sufferings “complete what is lacking in Christ’s afflictions for the sake
of his body, that is, the church” (Col. 1 :24). Their suffering with and for the church
obliges the church in its totality to participation with them in concern and in
intercession.
Commentary : The concept of the Apostolic Creed “ communio sanctorum ”
can be understood and has been understood in different ways. “Sanctorum”
can be either neutrum or masculinum. The meanings would then be, re-
spectively: “a communion sustained by holy gifts”, or: “a communion
consisting of holy persons”. The former would obviously refer to the divine
word and to the holy sacraments (including — eventually — certain regu-
lations necessary to secure their operation). Both meanings may be not only
historically justifiable, but — in the full context of Christian faith — simply
necessary. That in the course of time some churches have been more inclined
to underline the first, others more the second aspect may partly be seen as
legitimate expressions of mutually complementary vocations.
We Believe in the Holy Spirit 109
As to the sanctity of persons, there has been a different stress laid on,
respectively holiness as a corporate quality in which all Christians share by
faith in Christ, and on holiness as the fruit of sanctification, obtained to a
different degree by different Christians. It has generally been seen as being of
decisive importance, on the one side, that no Christian should put hope or
confidence in the degree of observable holiness obtained by him- or herself,
on the other side, that no one should be excused from pursuing sanctification
by the general givenness of sanctity in the wider Christian fellowship. The
designation of certain Christians as “saints”, and the conscious integration
of sainthood in Christian worship in “catholic” traditions, have during the
centuries been important topics of ecumenical controversy. There seems
today to be widespread agreement between the traditions that even if much
of the historical criticism of misunderstandings and abuse frequently connec-
ted with the worship of saints was justified and necessary, a way needs to be
found for the whole oikoumene to jointly explore and reconquer the inclus-
ivity of the mystery of Christ such as it is basically reflected in the authentic
concept and in the genuine liturgical inclusion of the “saints”.
III. The church as eucharistic, transforming and eschatological community
5. The church is the eucharistic community — receiving, sharing and thanksgiv-
ing— the basic calling of which is to worship the Triune God. In listening to the
word of God and in celebrating the sacraments according to Christ’s institution, it
is called to offer the prayer, praise and worship of Christians, not only on behalf of
themselves, but on behalf of all humankind and of the whole of creation.
This eucharistic vision of being-the-church unites the universality of creation
with the uniqueness of incarnation in the permanent actuality of sacramental
presence (the body of Christ given for and given to humankind/the church
representing humankind to the body of Christ). At the same time it opens up for a
comprehensive understanding of the ultimate relatedness of all authentic crea-
tional aspirations, and thus for the unity of “spiritual” and “material” service, of
“ leitourgia ” and “ diakonia The worshipping community is at the same time
contemplative and active, being served and serving, receiving and giving, and will
so remain until the end of times, when it is consumed by the all-comprehending
and all-restoring kingdom of God.
6. The church is the testimony of God’s active and transforming presence in the
world. As the vehicle of the word of God on earth it does not exist for itself, but for
the world. It is not a fortress in which people can enclose themselves for a life in
security, but a servant people spread throughout the world, sent not only to sow
the good seed of the word, but also to look after the seed which Christ, the
universal Lord, has already sown abundantly all over the earth — working and
praying for this seed to grow by the radiance of the light of the Holy Spirit. It
rejoices in all the signs of the caring work of the Creator which it encounters in the
world, all truth, all beauty and all goodness. It encourages the growth of these
human values, fruits of the hidden action of God, in the hope to bring them to the
final matureness in the kingdom by the light of the gospel and the nourishment of
the sacraments. It is the total richness of creation which the church offers to the
praise of God in the thanksgiving of the eucharist, in order for it to be restored in
the full transfiguration of the Creator’s “new creation”.
7. The church is the prefiguration of the kingdom which it expects and an-
nounces. As such it is called to a life in sanctifying transformation. At the same
110 One God, One Lord, One Spirit
time as it is conscious of being here on earth a communion of sinful beings, it is
aware of its true identity as a reality transcending all merely sensible observation.
It cannot be subject to the realities of this world, as it is oriented towards the
coming kingdom which it proclaims in word and deed. It awaits the glorious return
of Christ, its Lord, an expectancy which it expresses most vigorously in its liturgy.
The church can have no other attitude towards human power and wealth than that
of detachment and freedom. The church as a servant church is a poor and
powerless church, totally dependent upon its Master, who alone can turn its
poverty into the final fullness of perfection.
IV. The one, holy, catholic and apostolic church
8. There is only one holy church and it is catholic and apostolic in each place by
its faithfulness to the word of God, its link with the Lord, Head of the body, and its
communion in the Holy Spirit with all the local churches of God irrespective of
space and time.
a) There is but one church in the diversity of the local churches. All the baptized
are incorporated into a single body, called to witness to their one and only Saviour.
The unity of all Christians has to show itself visibly in the unity of the fundamental
faith and the sacramental life. The one baptism, the one holy scripture, the Creeds
of the ancient church and common prayer point towards this visible unity which
can be fully accomplished only in one common celebration of the eucharist. This
unity does not imply uniformity, but an organic bond of unity between all the local
churches in their valid diversities so that all the baptized, confessing the same faith,
are able to share together in the same sacraments, in particular the same eucharist,
the sign of their unity in the body of Christ (conciliarity — reconciled diversity).
b) The Holy Spirit dwells in the holy church. This church has been set apart by
God who is holy and who sanctifies it by the good deposit of word and sacraments.
It is holy because of the holy words it proclaims and the holy acts it performs, and
also a community of sinners, but sinners who have been and who are constantly
being forgiven. We must make a distinction in the church between the holy
ministry of word and sacraments, and the imperfect persons who exercise that holy
ministry. The holiness of the church signifies the faithfulness of God towards his
people: the gates of hell will not prevail against it. Even at the darkest times in the
church’s history, Christ preserves the essence of its being and service for the
salvation of humankind.
c) Christ, full of grace and truth, is already present on earth in the church
catholic. It is only in the whole (katholike) that the local church finds its true
identity, the fullness of truth and of judgment. The being of the church in its
fullness is gathered and expressed in great diversity through the Christian spiritual
life of all peoples in space and time. This fullness of the universal church limits
nationalism and particular traditions to their proper perspective. The fullness of
the universal church is a fullness of life; in the life of the church the whole human
being is enlisted for the worship and the service of God; this fullness can be seen in
Christian liturgy as well as in Christian daily life, both of which demand the
participation of our entire being and the whole creation to the glory of God.
“Where Jesus Christ is, there too is the Church catholic.”4 Where Jesus Christ is,
there the church is present through the power of the Spirit as the fullness of truth
and salvation, and there, in all ages, it makes people participants of his life and
salvation, irrespective of sex, race or position.
We Believe in the Holy Spirit 1 1 1
d ) The church is apostolic :
— in that it recognizes its fundamental identity with the church of Christ’s
apostles, as presented in the New Testament;
— in its faithfulness to the word of God lived out and understood in the apostolic
Tradition, guided by the Holy Spirit throughout the centuries, and expressed in
the Creeds;
— by its celebration of the sacraments instituted by Christ and practised by the
apostles;
— by the continuity of its ministry, initially taken up by the apostles, in the service
of Christ;
— being a missionary church which, following the example of the apostles, will not
cease to proclaim the gospel to the whole of humankind until Christ comes
again in glory.
Commentary : (A commentary on apostolic succession is to be drafted, see
“Baptism, Eucharist and Ministry”.)
C. THE RESURRECTION OF THE BODY
AND THE LIFE OF THE WORLD TO COME
I. The church as a community of hope
1. The church is a “ communion of hope ” (Bangalore 19785) in the midst of a
world that sees death and catastrophe in its future. This hope is not arbitrary,
because the church participates now in the future God has prepared for all
creatures. In the church the reign of Christ is present in the world. Thus, it is a sign
of God’s future for the renewal of humanity. The church also looks forward to the
final kingdom that is yet to come. It looks for its own and the world’s fulfilment
(cf. Edinburgh, 1937).6 The church awaits the fulfilment of the reality of reconcili-
ation already at the centre of its life through the Spirit. The church’s hope is
foremost, however, a hope for the world and a trust in God’s redemptive promise
of faithfulness to his entire creation. (By “the world” is here meant the entirety of
God’s creation, both within and beyond the community gathered around the word
and sacraments.)
II. Jesus Christ — the hope of the world
2. In Jesus Christ, his life and work, death and resurrection, God manifests the
future he intends for the world through the Spirit. As first-born from the dead,
Jesus is the realization and manifestation of the new humanity. In Jesus, life eternal
enters our lives, lifting them out of death and into communion with God. The
Spirit poured out by the Risen Christ is the seal of our hope. Our hope is a hope for
what is beyond human capacities and expectations (Heb. 11:1), a hope against
hope. Yet, it is a confident hope, because it rests on the powerful promise of God.
III. The oneness and wholeness of Christian hope
3. The church has one hope; “there is one body and one Spirit, just as you were
called to the one hope that belongs to your call” (Eph. 4:4). This one Christian
hope is expressed in the biblical witness to the kingdom of God, the resurrection,
and the new heaven and earth. These aspects of our hope are inseparably
intertwined, yet can be distinguished in order to affirm Christian hope in its social,
individual and cosmic dimensions.
112 One God, One Lord, One Spirit
a) Kingdom of God
4. The kingdom of God is the sovereign reign of God through his Son Jesus
Christ in the Spirit. Under God’s sovereign reign, the forces of evil, sin, and death,
the principalities and powers of the age (1 Cor. 1 5 : 24f . ; Col. 2:15) are overcome
through the cross and resurrection (Phil 2:5-11). Our sins are forgiven and we are
freed from fear of the forces of evil. While the sovereign reign of God is a lordship
of power, it is the reign of the cross. The sovereignty of the kingdom is manifest in
the lowly service of Jesus and is not a lordship of domination. The Kingdom of
God is the fulfilment of the prophecy to Israel (Isa. 11:1-11; Micah 4:3) of the
establishment of justice, righteousness and peace, God’s will done on earth as in
heaven. This kingdom is the koinonia of humanity, the consummation of the
communion of the saints. In this koinonia, all nations will come to the feast of the
Lamb.
b ) Resurrection
5. The forces of death are present throughout life. Death invades and destroys
life and seeks to separate us from our brothers and sisters and from God. Death is
conquered in the cross and resurrection of Christ. In baptism (Rom. 6:3ff.) and
throughout the Christian life, we participate in Christ’s death and resurrection and
receive his life-giving Spirit. We rise into the fullness of life God promises to his
creatures.
6. The focus of our hope for life with God beyond death according to the New
Testament (1 Thess. 4:13-18; Matt. 25:3 Iff.; 1 Cor. 15:3ff.) and the Creed is the
resurrection of the dead. We also affirm that those who have died with Christ now
live in Christ.
Commentary : The status of the dead between death and the final resurrec-
tion has been understood in various ways. The idea of the immortality of the
soul, important for much of Christian history, has been both affirmed and
denied in recent years. Different beliefs about the status of the dead and their
relation to the living lead to divergent beliefs and practices in relation to
prayers for the dead, prayers by the dead, the invocation of the saints, and a
purgational period after death.
7. Resurrection involves an encounter with the living God and his judgment of
good and evil within personal and communal life. God creates an accountable
humanity and will be faithful to his creation; all will be called to account in God’s
still open judgment. We affirm that it is not the eternal will of God to condemn and
destroy the world he has created. In giving his Son he wants his world to be saved
through his Son (John 3:17). The universal saving intention of God (1 Tim. 2:4)
cannot be the basis of a presumptuous security. The apostolic witness explicitly
reckons with an outer darkness and the possibility of being cast into it. Such a
possibility will never be based on a lack of God’s will to save.
Commentary: While some have defended universal salvation, most
Christian thought has assumed that many will be lost to salvation and con-
demned. Apocatastasis or the assured salvation of all creatures has been
rejected by official doctrinal statements of all churches except those who are
denominationally “universalist”. Nevertheless, prominent voices have re-
cently suggested that only the possibility that some will be condemned need
be asserted.
We Believe in the Holy Spirit 113
The judgment of God is passed through his Son, in unity with his Spirit and his
church. “Christ will come as the revelation of truth and righteousness. The
ultimate judgment of the world is his, our assurance that the murderer will never
ultimately triumph over the victim” (Bangalore7). Our judge is our Saviour; we are
judged by the God who justifies.
c) New heaven and earth
8. We will rise in our full humanity, not as disembodied spirits. What was sown
in perishability will rise imperishable (1 Cor. 15:52). While creation will be trans-
formed in ways that are still a mystery, no essential aspect of creation will be lost.
In Christ God sets forth his “plan for the fullness of time, to unite all things in him,
things in heaven and things on earth” (Eph. 1:10). Not only heavenly but also
earthly things, the wholeness of creation, will find a place in the kingdom of God.
The water of baptism and the bread and wine of the eucharist we already see as the
inclusion of earthly things in the celebration of God. In the new heaven and new
earth (Isa. 65:17; Rev. 21:1), the communion of creation , in perfect openness one to
another, will praise God face to face (1 Cor. 13:12). Creation will be unified and
transformed in the abiding reality of God’s love (1 Cor. 13:13). God will be all in
all (1 Cor. 15:28).
IV. Living out our hope
9. In our hope we can live with confidence and trust in the promises of God in
the midst of a world that seems closed in its future. Because the final future is in the
sure hands of God, we need not be anxious for tomorrow (Matt. 6:34). We are
freed by our hope to work for a more humane and just world. Our faithful pursuit
of justice and peace within history cannot bring in the kingdom (see §10), but our
work is done “in the trust that nothing of what we have done in expectation of that
Holy City will be lost” (Riva del Garda8). We are freed to rejoice with those who
rejoice and to weep with those who weep. Because our hope is grounded in God,
we can take the risk (cf. Bangalore9) of opening ourselves to the joys and sufferings
of the world.
10. Affirming our hope for this world, we deny any escape from this world and
its problems, either by losing ourselves in the accumulation of things or by an
otherworldly flight away from the neighbour’s concrete needs.
— Affirming our trust in the future God has prepared for us, we deny any attempt
to secure our future at the expense of the world, especially through the threat of
mass destruction.
— Affirming the presence of the yet future kingdom, we deny any understanding of
God’s coming kingdom which either separates the kingdom from this world and
its life or identifies the fullness of the kingdom with any historical reality or any
human action, not even any present ecclesiastical structure.
— Affirming God’s faithfulness to his entire creation, we deny any impoverishment
of our hope which blinds us to the wholeness of God’s redemption of society, of
individuals, or of all creation.
— Affirming that Jesus with his Spirit and church is God’s word by which all is
explained and judged, we deny that the powers that seem to rule history will
finally determine its meaning and destiny.
— In the face of a secularism which does not look beyond itself to God, our hope,
living within this world while looking to the world to come, renews itself
through worship, prayer, and liturgy.
114 One God, One Lord, One Spirit
11. In the face of despair over the world, our hope refuses to acquiesce in things
as they are.
— In face of growing hopelessness, our hope will declare no situation or person
beyond hope.
— In the face of oppression, our hope affirms that oppression will not remain
forever.
— In the face of the use of the language of Christian hope to justify political
programmes, our hope affirms that the advent of the kingdom of God is not
within our capacity, but remains in the power of God’s surprising initiative.
— In the face of unbearable pain, incurable disease, and irreversible handicap, our
hope affirms that Christ suffers with all who are hopeless.
— In the face of our failure to live out our hope in the world, our hope affirms that
the Spirit opens to us ever new ways of being signs to the world of the coming
kingdom.
12. In God alone is our trust. All that we have received, we have received from
his hand. All that we hope for will come from his blessing. To God be glory from
age to age. “He who testifies to these things, says, ‘surely I am coming soon’.
Amen. Come, Lord Jesus” (Rev. 22:20).
NOTES
1. Cf. “The Filioque Clause in Ecumenical Perspective: Klingenthal Memorandum 1979”,
in “Apostolic Faith Today: a Handbook for Study”, H.-G. Link ed., Faith and Order
Paper No. 124 , Geneva, WCC, 1985, pp.23 Iff.
2. Cf. “Our Credo — Source of Hope. Declaration by Participants of the Third European
Ecumenical Encounter, 1984”, in “Apostolic Faith Today”, op. cit., pp.l88ff.
3. Cyprian, De Or at. Dom. 23.
4. Ignatius of Antioch, Ad Smyrn. 8,12.
5. Cf. “A Common Account of Hope: Final Document. V: The Church: a Communion of
Hope”, in “Apostolic Faith Today”, op. cit., pp.88f.
6. Cf. “The Church of Christ and the World of God, V. The Church and the Kingdom of
God”, in The Second World Conference on Faith and Order , L. Hodgson ed., London,
1938, pp.232f.
7. In “Apostolic Faith Today”, op. cit., p.87.
8. Ibid., p.21 1.
9. Ibid., “Hope as the Invitation to Risk”, pp.90ff.
The Prophetic Spirit, the Church
as a Community and Living Our Hope
Ecumenical Aspects of the Third Article
of the Creed
HANS-GEORG LINK
I. The Spirit who has spoken through the prophets
1. Approaches
2. Jurgen Moltmann’s interpretation
3. From the Chantilly discussion
4. The first draft “explication”
5 Additions
6. From the Stavanger discussion
7. On the Berlin/Potsdam “explication”
II. Communion in the one body of Christ: the church
1. Approaches
2. A Roman Catholic, a Lutheran and a Baptist view
3. From the Chantilly discussion
4. The first draft “explication”
5. Additions
6. From the Stavanger discussion
7. On the Berlin/Potsdam “explication”
III. Living our hope
1. Approaches
2. Contemporary standpoints
3. From the Chantilly discussion
4. The first draft “explication”
5. Additions
6. From the Stavanger discussion
7. On the Berlin/Potsdam “explication”
1 1 6 One God, One Lord, One Spirit
The third article of the Creed covers a wide range from the Spirit’s procession
from the Father to the life of the world to come. The “age of the church”, from
Pentecost to the parousia, is included in this all-embracing perspective. It is this
which constitutes the special ecumenical relevance of this article of the Creed. For
in it the theme which belongs peculiarly to the oikoumene is under discussion: the
one, holy, catholic and apostolic church. Both its foundation then and its form
now as the body of Christ are involved. Alongside the “marks of the church”
{notae ecclesiae ) ethical standpoints are also in evidence.
Also related to the third article is the “classical” conflict between Eastern and
Western church traditions: the Western addition of the filioque clause (“and the
Son”) on the procession of the Spirit from the Father. Although theologians of
both traditions have come considerably closer to each other’s position in the last
few years,1 it is still not possible to speak of a theological, liturgical, spiritual or
even canonical solution to the filioque problem.
Finally, the third article offers a pointer to the basis, content and aim of
Christian hope, and in this age of increasing despair, this is of special importance.
For each main theme I shall select one aspect from the multitude of problems
and points of view, to give an outline picture of the road travelled from the initial
discussion to the “explication” as it now stands.
I. The Spirit who has spoken through the prophets
1. Approaches
In comparison with the Apostles’ Creed, which does no more than mention very
briefly the fact of the Holy Spirit, the Nicene Creed2 has much to say as soon as the
Holy Spirit is mentioned. The first item stressed is the lordship, and thus the
personal quality, of the Spirit; this nowadays raises the question how the personal-
ity of the Spirit as the third Person of the Trinity is to be understood. Next, the
Spirit is represented as the giver, or, as it were, the mother, of life; many reflections
on the feminine element in the Trinity are today associated with these, and also
with Hebraic feminine representations of the Spirit. Stress is laid thirdly on the
direct procession of the Spirit from the Father without the mediation of the Son;
this is where the East-West conflict in pneumatology reached its sad climax in the
debate on the source of the Spirit. The fourth emphasis is on the Spirit’s equality of
rank, doxologically, with the Father and the Son; this is reflected in liturgical
epiklesis of the Spirit and generally in the Trinitarian spirituality of the East, which
is at present being rediscovered by many churches in the West.
Finally, the Creed confesses the identity of the Holy Spirit with the Spirit “who
spoke through the prophets”. This pronouncement of the Nicene Creed is all the
more important since for more than fifteen hundred years it remained the sole
explicit, positive reference to the Old Testament in a Christian confession till we
come to the 1948 declaration of the Dutch Hervormde Kerk (Reformed Church)
on the relation of Christians and Jews. Here the reference was to the Christian
relation, on the one hand to the prophets, the Old Testament as a whole and the
past and present of Judaism, and on the other to the relation to present-day
prophetic manifestations in the church. I have chosen this last aspect of the
Christian confession of the Holy Spirit because it concerns one of the fields which
has ecumenically had least work done on it and is at the same time specially
important for our understanding of modern prophetic awakenings in the Christian
world.
Ecumenical Aspects of the Third Article 117
2. Jurgen Moltmann's interpretation
Jurgen Moltmann, a Reformed theologian from Tubingen, gave one of the two
addresses on the Holy Spirit. In it he made the following comments on the Spirit,
“who has spoken through the prophets”:
According to the self-understanding of the Old Testament prophetical writings,
therefore, the prophets proclaim the word of the Lord in the Spirit of the Lord and the
Spirit of the Lord leads them to bear witness to the word of the Lord. It is the same
Spirit who speaks to us through Jesus Christ (Luke 4: 1 8ff.), in whom Christ has come
to us and whom he sends to us. This is what the Nicene clause affirms. But,
conversely, it means that the Spirit in whom Christ came and whom he sends to us,
had already spoken through the prophets to Israel. And if he has spoken through the
prophets to Israel, this cannot be restricted to the “Old Testament” and pre-Christian
Israel, but also applies to that Israel beside the church which hears the prophets by
preserving, believing and taking seriously the words of the prophetical writings. The
“Spirit who has spoken through the prophets” spoke first to Israel before speaking to
Christians in the dawning messianic age. If, however, he first spoke through Israel’s
prophets to Israel, then he must also continue to speak through the writings of these
prophets to Israel beside and outside the Christian church. In this respect Israel beside
the churches, Judaism beside Christianity is the other form of the Holy Spirit who has
spoken through the prophets and continues to speak through them. It is not possible
to change the perfect tense of this speech of the Holy Spirit through the prophets of
Israel into a pluperfect and say: “who had spoken through the prophets” so as to put
back Israel and the prophets into the pre-history of the church and put the church in
the place of Israel in God’s salvation history. The case is, rather, that the brief
statement of the Nicene Creed brings Christianity into the community of the Holy
Spirit with Judaism and to recognition of the people of God which today listens to the
Holy Spirit — the “Lord” — who has spoken through its prophets.
Thus for Moltmann there are three paramount aspects:
1) one and the same Spirit of God spoke out of the mouths of the prophets and of
Jesus of Nazareth;
2) the Spirit spoke to Israel through the prophets before Christianity and contin-
ues to speak right up to the present to the Israel that hearkens to the prophets,
alongside the church;
3) it is therefore not possible for the church to make itself a substitute for Israel;
rather, the church is brought by this pronouncement of the Nicene Creed into
community with the Jews as another manifestation of the Holy Spirit.
3. From the Chantilly discussion
In Chantilly there were five aspects that had a part to play:
a) Frieda Haddad, the Orthodox theologian from Beirut, had undertaken to
give the follow-up address to Moltmann’s. While both addresses had common
ground in their reflections on the femininity and Trinitarian personality of the
Spirit, there is not a single comment in Frieda Haddad’s remarks on the Spirit who
spoke through the prophets. This silence of hers is extremely telling, for it brings
out something of the different attitude of the Orthodox tradition to Judaism, in
contrast to Reformed covenant theology. The differing treatments of the theme
seem also to indicate the very different situations of these two Christian theolo-
gians: Moltmann is trying as a German theologian living in West Germany to arrive
at a new, dependable basis for the relation between the church and Judaism. As an
Orthodox Christian, Frieda Haddad shared the experience of the bombardment of
1 1 8 One God, One Lord, One Spirit
Beirut by Israeli forces in 1983/4; seeing herself and her Muslim neighbours in the
role of victims to Israeli acts of aggression she can clearly say nothing, against that
background, regarding the Spirit who spoke through Israel’s prophets. If today a
German theologian has to point to the enduring significance of Judaism for
salvation history, it is correspondingly difficult for Christians in the Middle East
who are suffering from Israeli occupation to recognize in the Israel of today
something of that special salvation history character in relation to the church.
b) What did the Nicene fathers have in mind with their credal statement? In
Chantilly the stress was placed on two aspects. On the one hand, it was said, they
rejected a view of the Spirit, and of Christian existence in the Spirit as something
acquired and experienced independently of, or in opposition to, the Old Testament
— or at its expense; that is, they rejected Marcion’s second century position, which
moreover has at various times brought one disaster after another on the Christian
church, right up to the attempts in the (German) Third Reich to “dejudaize” the
Bible and the Christian faith. On the other hand, the Nicene fathers confessed the
identity of the Spirit of God in the prophets of Israel and in Jesus of Nazareth. For
them this included recognition of the divine inspiration of the prophetic and all
other writings of the Old Testament, and hence the acknowledgment of these as
normative for their own preaching and living.
c) In the history of Christianity there were various forms of prophecy. The
sequence begins with the appearance of John the Baptist as a new, eschatological
prophet; and in the New Testament Jesus of Nazareth is likewise seen, in part, as
standing in the prophetic tradition. Prophecy is one of the gifts of the Spirit, for
which every New Testament community is supposed to strive. In the church’s
beginnings, there were wandering prophets who went from place to place and
expounded the will of God to Christian congregations. Christian prophecy reached
its first climax with the charismatic movement of Montanus which developed in the
second and third centuries into a full-blown ecclesiastical crisis. The conflict
between personal charism and institutionalized ministry was argued out here for
the first time on a broad front, and was decided in favour of the authority of the
ministry. At Chantilly, attention was specifically focused on the point that proph-
ecy was increasingly ousted from its place in the official church, although at times it
again caught public attention, as in the instances of Joachim of Fiore and the left
wing of the Reformation. Not till the twentieth century has there been a resurgence
in the importance of prophetic movements. Pentecostalist churches have come into
being, first and foremost in the third world, and the charismatic movement, with its
critical attitude towards institutionalism, can be found in almost every continent
and confronts the established churches with difficult problems.
d) This leads us to the question of the content of prophetic gifts. Since the days of
King Saul there has been a dynamic and even ecstatic element in prophecy as a gift
of the Spirit. Critical questionings directed at Israel’s worship and social structure
and likewise at the church can equally be indicators of a prophetic Spirit. But
primarily, it was said at Chantilly, the task of a prophet is to expound auth-
oritatively God’s will to God’s people in a particular situation. For this reason,
greater significance attaches to the prophetic message of which the content is a gift
of the Spirit, than to accompanying manifestations, which may range from the
charismatic to the ecstatic and are at times overvalued and very liable to misuse for
dramatic effect. Justice and peace are undoubtedly among the classical prophetic
themes. As regards these elements and other forms in which prophecy manifests
itself, discerning the spirits is essential. While the Spirit is not to be quenched, it
Ecumenical Aspects of the Third Article 1 19
must also be kept in mind that not every spirit is of God. One of the most
important of today’s ecumenical tasks is to find criteria for discerning the spirits.
e) Following the catastrophe which befell the Jews during the second world war,
a new definition of the relation of Christians and Jews is needed; not just as a
special German act of reparation but rather as a thorough-going ecumenical task.
It ties up both with overdue Christian reflection on the faith’s Jewish roots and
with the identity of the Spirit of God in Jewish and Christian prophets. One of the
questions heatedly debated at Chantilly was whether the activity of the Spirit of
God can be perceived only within the Christian church, or also outside it. There
was nevertheless a good deal of agreement that one of the best ways of achieving
rapprochement between Jews and Christians is to look at the expectation of the
coming Messiah which they have in common, in the light of the promises given to
both in the Hebrew scriptures.
4. The first draft explication
The first draft worked out at Chantilly for an ecumenical explication on the
theme of the Holy Spirit generally follows the themes set forth in the Creed. Under
the general heading “The Holy Spirit” paragraphs 9 and 10 discuss the relevant
credal statement under the sub-heading “The Spirit and the Prophets”3. This
initial draft explication groups the viewpoints brought together in the Chantilly
discussion in two sections. The contents are thus structured as follows:
I. Theme: The Spirit and the Jewish people (Para. 9 with commentary)
Theses: 1 . The same spirit was at work in the prophets of Israel and in
Jesus of Nazareth.
2. “Through the centuries’’ the Jewish people have heard and
responded to the Spirit.
3. There is hope that the continuing working of the Spirit will
bring Jewish and Christian communities closer to each other.
Commentary: 1. The church fathers rejected the separation of the God of the
prophets from the Father of Jesus Christ.
2. The traditional attitude of the church towards the Jewish
people is currently being reconsidered.
3. Jews and Christians share the expectation of an eschatological
Messiah.
II. Theme: The Spirit and the Christian church (Para. 10 with commentary)
Theses: 1. The Holy Spirit rested on God’s anointed prophet Jesus in a
definitive way.
2. Jesus transmitted the power of prophecy to his church.
3. Today too Christians receive prophetic gifts and bear prophetic
witness.
4. Believers must practise discerning the spirits.
Commentary: 1. In church history there were various forms of prophecy.
2. In the twentieth century the phenomenon of prophecy has
appeared in the pentecostalist churches and the charismatic
movement.
5. Additions
a) The Geneva revision of April 1985 added to the Chantilly explication a whole
new section with biblical and historical references which provided the interpret-
ation and exegetical and historical support. As regards the Spirit that spoke
120 One God, One Lord, One Spirit
through the prophets there were some additions dealing with the experience of the
first Christian communities in relation to the working of the Spirit in the Old
Covenant:
4. The first Christian generation acknowledged that the Spirit who was with Christ
during his ministry from baptism on (cf. Matt. 3:16; 4:1; Luke 3:22, 4:1,14; etc.) and
who was given by the risen Lord was already at work in the Old Covenant: speaking
through the prophets, anointing the kings of the people, inspiring the prayers of the
faithful.
5. It is also clear from the New Testament witness that the same Spirit of God who
was calling the people of God into one community was also the one who after the
resurrection of Christ made of all the believers the body of Christ, a holy temple, the
family of God.
6. The way in which the first Christian communities understood and proclaimed
the event of pentecost shows that for them the Spirit poured out on them was the
Spirit of the eschatological times already announced by the prophets of the Old
Testament.
7. While taking up in this way the Old Testament witness to the Spirit of God, the
primitive church realized, however, in the light of its faith in Jesus Christ, that the
Spirit of Jahwe was not only an impersonal power active in history, but also has
personal features. In analogy to their understanding of the word of God (logos) as the
person of the logos made flesh in Jesus Christ, they confessed that the Holy Spirit,
together with the Father and the Son, is active as a person in the economy of
salvation. (Ill, A. I)
b) The Cret-Berard draft of June 1985 expands the explication of the criterion
for discerning the spirits with this sentence: “The confession of Jesus Christ,
according to the Apostle Paul, serves as a criterion of distinguishing the spirit of
God from other prophetic spirits (1 Cor. 12:3)” (III, A. Ill, 25).
6. From the Stavanger discussion
In Stavanger the discussion on the Spirit who spoke through the prophets
focused on two aspects: the Christian relation to the Jews and prophetic or
charismatic phenomena today.
a) On Christian- Jewish relations study group 3 remarks that:
Originally the claim that the Spirit spoke through the prophets was inserted to
combat Marcion, and we need to make reference to contemporary forms of Marcion-
ism. The reference to the prophets allows for comment on the relationship between
Christianity and Judaism, but the discussion as it stands is inadequate, since it
initially implies a triumphalistic Judaism (“The Jewish people have not ceased ... to
listen and respond to God’s Spirit . . . ”), and since it also traces the commonality of
Christianity and Jews to their shared Messianic expectation. Certainly many Jews
would not agree that the prophets “announced an eschatological coming of the
Messiah” and most of contemporary Judaism does not stress Messianic expectation.
In a personal statement, Mgr Jorge Mejia from Argentina, the Vatican official
responsible for relations with the Jews, made the following four proposals:
1 . The Old Testament is inspired by the Spirit in the same sense and with the same
consequences as the New. Therefore, it belongs with equal right to the faith and the
worship of the church.
2. All unfavourable comparisons with the Jewish religion should be explicitly
rejected as if the Christian faith were the “cult in Spirit” and Judaism “the worship in
the flesh” or mere “subservience to the Law”. The Spirit of God has not certainly
Ecumenical Aspects of the Third Article 121
abandoned the Jewish people, but slowly and mysteriously guides it through its final
consummation. In such context, the present renewal relationship should be seen.
3. I would tune down the reference to the Messiah here and insist more on the
common eschatological hope of the kingdom (with its necessary consequence for the
service of humankind and the work for the transformation of the world).
4. The origin of the church in the Jewish matrix and therefore the continuity in the
plan of God should be mentioned, this being the real theological basis for the new
relationship.
b) On modern manifestations of prophecy , Horace Russell , the Baptist theologian
from Jamaica, first made the general point that prophecy also plays an important
part in Islam and African religious traditions too, and that within Christianity as a
whole the charismatic movements merit greater attention in the discussion on the
Holy Spirit. Dr Yeow Choo Lak from the Presbyterian church in Singapore then
made the following detailed comments on this:
Both the original text and the repo/t of Group II. 3 have not paid sufficient
attention to the implications of the numerous charismatic renewals taking place all
over the world. Because of this, many from our supporting churches deeply involved
with charismatic renewals will be forced by us to adopt the I-told-you-so position,
viz., we are a bunch of theologians with head knowledge only.
Many of our congregations are asking for help as many of our pastors are “new” to
the challenges and implications of charismatic renewals. For example, they are being
compelled to re-examine spiritual gifts and how these charismata are being exercised
in the congregation. Their seminaries have not prepared them for this task.
There is a dire need for our Faith and Order Commission to address itself to a
spiritual phenomenon taking place in many of our congregations. This will, at least
indirectly, make our material relevant to those involved in charismatic renewal and
useful to pastors looking for help in this area.
It appears that many third-world churches are confronted by charismatic and
prophetic movements more directly than in the first and second worlds. In this
context the report of the study group demands that “the criteria for distinguishing
God’s Spirit from other spirits should be set forth more fully” than has so far
happened in the explication.
7. On the Berlin/ Potsdam explication
a) As regards the relations between the church and the Jews , it is now said of the
church that it is “in continuity with the people of God in the Old Testament” and is
“at the same time the People of God of the New Covenant” (III, A.II, 21). While at
this fundamental point there is a fuller reference to the relation between Jews and
Christians, the recommendation at the end of the commentary is at the same time
more general and more cautious in its wording: “Christians and Jews might be able
to come nearer to each other by studying their respective eschatological expec-
tations of God’s final kingdom and by seeking ways of common service to
humankind in this perpective.”
b) The “ charismatic renewal ” is now explicitly mentioned among the gifts of
prophecy and thus brought out from its sectarian corner into the broad stream of
the gifts of the Spirit (para. 23). At the same time an explanation is added
regarding the criteria for discerning the spirits: “In the history of the church
additional criteria drawn from the biblical witness and the tradition and confession
of the church have been employed as required by specific situations and challenges
(cf. for example 1 John 4:2,3).”
122 One God, One Lord, One Spirit
Whether what has so far been said is adequate on the important problem of the
gifts of the Spirit and the criteria for discerning these from other spirits will have to
become evident as the discussion proceeds. At all events it is a great ecumenical
step forward that in this explication the church and the Jews have been brought
into a positive relation with each other. “The Jewish people have continued
through the centuries on the basis of their tradition to listen and respond to God’s
Spirit speaking through these scriptures” (III, A.II,21). It is to be hoped that this
ecumenical insight will contribute in increasing measure to overcoming all forms of
Christian anti-Jewish attitudes.
II. Community in the one body of Christ: the church
1. Approaches
The Creed refers to the one, holy, catholic and apostolic church as a creation of
the Spirit. As an institution it has no life of its own independent of the working of
the Spirit but rather participates in the worldwide creative movement of the Spirit.
Consequently the four marks of the church should be understood with ecumenical
breadth and not confessional narrowness. Connected with this is the challenge to
give expression to the unity of the church over against the fact that it is torn apart
into many confessions. In the ecumenical context the holiness of the church does
not have as its purpose only the sanctification of its members, but aims even more
at the display of signs of renewal and solidarity in a worldwide community. How
are we to regain today, especially in Protestantism, the catholic dimension of the
church, confronted as we are with many kinds of provincialism, and link that
dimension with cultural diversity? Apostolicity presupposes firm links with origins
and a credible commitment of the churches in today’s world.
To make these four marks of the church effective again in the ecumenical age, a
comprehensive ecclesiology is needed. In recent ecumenical discussion the model of
the body of Christ has proved particularly helpful in linking together the various
positions; it plays a key role in the development of a common ecumenical
ecclesiology. Here it must be discovered whether we can develop an ecumenical
understanding of a unity which will not become a sterile, monotonous uniformity
but will rather be the expression of a live fellowship or community. Here too there
has to be an explication of catholicity which avoids the hierarchical dangers of
Roman Catholicism and instead of this displays ecumenical breadth in cultural
diversity. Finally, the body of Christ as the fundemental model for the church has a
sacramental and an ethical dimension too.
2. A Roman Catholic, a Lutheran and a Baptist view
a) The Canadian Dominican Jean Tillard gave the main theological address at
Chantilly: “God’s Church in God’s Plan”. It has two parts: (1) God’s church and
God’s gospel, (2) communion in the body of Christ. At the beginning of the second
part Tillard develops his view of the church as the body of Christ:
Why are Christians the one single body of Christ? Why is their lack of solidarity,
especially when it extends so far as to be displayed at the Lord’s table, a lack of
discernment of that body (1 Cor. 11:17-34)? Because the bread that is broken is
“communion with the body of Christ” (10: 16-17). The inner unity of the community
comes from the fact that all, which embraces each individual with his or her own
unique qualities, are caught up in the one indivisible body of Christ the Lord. The
body is not formed by the sum of the individual members; rather, it assumes into itself
Ecumenical Aspects of the Third Article 123
their multiplicity, and the Spirit of his Lordship welds them together in koinonia. The
conjunction of singularity and communion, in which the members retain their
individuality and yet at the same time are attentive to and concerned for one
another — the function which saves them — takes place within the embrace of the
body “of peace”, “of unity”, “of reconciliation”, “of charity”.
The letter to the Ephesians, which was probably written within the context of intra-
ecclesiastical tensions, is the key document with regard to this unitive function of the
body of Christ. It places at the heart of its meditation on the church, whose Head is
Christ, the Ruler of the whole universe (Eph. 1:20-23), the declaration that hatred,
division, separation and alienation have been destroyed, slain, reduced to nothing by
the blood of the cross: “You who once were far off have been brought near in the
blood of Christ . . . What was divided he has brought into unity: in his flesh he has
destroyed the wall of separation, the hatred . . . His desire was to reconcile Jews and
Gentiles in one body by means of the cross: there he killed hatred” (2:13-16). The
crucified body of Jesus, his “body of flesh” (Col. 1:26; cf. 2:11), perishable and
mortal, becomes the place of reconciliation (Col. 1:22) because forgiveness has been
obtained through the bloodshed and murder of the cross (Eph. 1 :7). The imprint and
burden of salvation are revealed on this body given up to death for the sake of the
accomplishment of God’s gracious plan (the “mystery”), which had as its aim the
reunification of the entire universe.
Therefore, Christ’s own personal body, in which the drama of pardon and
reconciliation were lived out, is in truth the “meeting-point” of the new humanity, the
specific place where koinonia ( described by Paul as a body) becomes constituted and
present, already complete in its very essence. In an admirable word which provides a
concrete expression of the nature of this “mystery”, the blocs or factions of broken
humanity here and now find themselves “concorporated” (the sunsoma of Eph. 3:6).
Thus the resurrection of this body of flesh in a body of glory seals, in the power of the
Spirit, the “recapitulation” or “return to unity” of all of humanity in Christ (1:10).
The ecclesial body springs to life in and with the risen body of the Lord (2:6), who is
its head in the twofold sense of source of life (as in the medical theory of Hippocrates)
and of chief. Thus, held fast in him, the ecclesial body appears as the fullness of Christ
(1:23), “that without which Christ would not be complete, but with which he is
complete” (J. A. Robinson). In the sense expressed by Paul in his letters to the
Corinthians and to the Romans, the body exists only in the body of the crucified One
who has been glorified by the Spirit. The two cannot be separated. Yet this inclusion
of the ecclesial body in the risen body is no more than the obverse of a fundamental
dependence: the Spirit who makes the former into koinonia comes to it from this body
of the Lord of glory.
b) Per Tanning , a Norwegian Lutheran at the Ecumenical Institute of the
Lutheran World Federation in Strasbourg, was responsible for the follow-up
address to Tillard’s. After self-critical comments on the Lutheran confession and
an explanation of the Lutheran view of the church using Article 7 of the Augsburg
Confession, Lonning took up in the third part of his address what Tillard had said:
First what Father Tillard has presented seems to me to be a profound biblical
description of churchliness — which is extremely important per se. But apart from
perhaps three or four references to a terminology of the church as “sacrament”
(which is not derived directly from the Bible), there is no reference in his paper to
distinctively “Catholic” (in the meaning of Roman) ecclesiological features. His
exegesis, therefore, provides no justification of Catholic ecclesiological claims, such as
they have traditionally been propounded with the effect of disqualifying other
churches. This I would be the last in the world to deplore. My observation is,
however, that with the gratifying concord thus obtained we are not yet at the crucial
point of confrontation. If this could mean that the traditional Roman claims, as far as
124 One God, One Lord, One Spirit
they imply a disqualification of other churches, are given up in light of the biblical
evidence, so much the better. But if these claims, or at least some of them, still persist,
there remains a good deal of exegesis to be done before the biblical evidence, which
should lead to a real exchange on the “problem within the problem”, is on the table.
What Father Tillard has presented is the “Catholic” view in the meaning of catholic,
i.e. common to all Christians sharing the ecumenical credo. What might go beyond
this, would obviously need a further justification.
My second question may seem to contrast a little with the first. I have put a
question mark after the concept of the church as “ sacr amentum" . I do this, however,
not because I see this notion as necessarily delusive or as intended to introduce some
aberrant understanding of the church, but because I wonder whether it is helpful.
Does it really solve more problems than it creates? I doubt it . . .
Concerning the word “sacrament”, it may cause some confusion that the church as
such be conceptually placed on an equal footing with the sacraments given to, and
administered by, the same church. It is also the case that the sign character of the
sacraments is something given, constituted by the sacramental event of word and of
visible elements, whereas the visible appearing of the church is constituted precisely
by the sacraments as they are realized in literal practice. To speak of the church as
“sacrament” may therefore easily obscure her character as receiver and as spender of
the sacraments. It might also lead to equalizing the instituted givenness of bread and
wine (just to illustrate my point by a concrete example) and the institutional
givenness of church structures in general. For this reason I find this terminology a bit
risky. It tends to introduce confusion more than to provide clarification.
To safeguard, underline and clarify the sign character of the church, I find a more
helpful concept is that which Vancouver brought to the fore as its main contribution
to theological reflection on unity, namely “ the eucharistic vision'. As far as I can see,
all the substantial elements advocated — and rightly advocated — by Father Tillard
are at least equally contained in that formula, and at the same time it is considerably
better protected against institutionalistic misunderstandings. It is clear, namely, that
here the essential, indispensable sign is the church, not as an institutional complex nor
as a static structure, but as a live organism, visible in her central act of self-realization.
The sacramentality of the church is none other than the sacramentality of her
ministry, the proclamation of the gospel in word and in deed. As a Lutheran I could
find no better way of phrasing this than by resorting to Father Tillard himself: “Here
the eucharist appears as the sacramentum par excellence of the koinonia. It is at this
point homogeneous with the church of God; the fathers will not hesitate to affirm that
‘the eucharist constitutes the church’. In it is found all we have put forward. By
receiving the eucharistic body and blood ... the members of the celebrating
community find themselves caught up in the very reality which fuses their koinonia
together: the body whose members they are.”
c) Speaking from a Caribbean perspective and also as a representative of the
third world, Horace Russell discussed the marks of the church. It is striking how
much closer to a concrete situation Russell is in tackling the unity, holiness,
catholicity and apostolicity of the church. On unity he writes:
It was not until the 1930s (and the discussion gathered in strength until the 1950s)
that the issues of unity and, with it, the “oneness” of the church arose. This was
stimulated by the emergence of the Student Christian Movement in Jamaica and in
the Latin islands which forced young people to take the unity of the church more
seriously. And coeval with this movement within the church there emerged also a
growing awareness of the unity of the region in political and economic terms. It is a
great temptation to suggest that both events are inter-related but the evidence for this
is scant. At the same time, however, it must be observed that there is and has always
been a close tie between religion, religious expression and politics.
Ecumenical Aspects of the Third Article 125
Despite the attempts at discussion, the Week of Prayer for Christian Unity held
each January, united Bible studies, joint services, “oneness” meant essential denomi-
national oneness either in one island or across the region. At most it meant an
acceptance of other Christians as Christians when you got to know them. If there was
an expression of “oneness” it was only as the church and the churches came together
in councils or other joint agencies to face a common task . . .
Similarly, at the inauguration of the Caribbean Conference of Churches 1973 the
greeting sent to the churches observed:
“We remind you, as we remind ourselves, and declare to all that our purpose and
objective in this venture is clearly set forth in the preamble to our accepted constitu-
tion now fully in effect:
“We as the Christian people of Caribbean separated from each other by barriers of
history, language, culture, class and distance, desire because of our common calling in
Christ to join together in a regional fellowship of churches for inspiration, consult-
ation and cooperative action. We are deeply concerned to promote the human
liberation of our people and are committed to the achievement of social justice and
the dignity of man in society. We desire to build up together our life in Christ and
share our experience with the universal brotherhood of mankind”.
The letter goes on to spell out five themes of concern viz work, worship, reconcili-
ation, development and power . . .
It will be observed that both the Jamaica Council of Churches’ experience and the
Caribbean Conference of Churches’ reports lay emphasis upon a unity (or solidarity)
in the concrete situation, as the church (the churches) face the need to witness. The
churches assume their “oneness” to be an inner “oneness” related to the life in Christ
as Bishop Percival Gibson in his booklet “Christ for Jamaica” observed: “The New
Testament uses the word church as referring not only to the universal Christian
society but also to each local congregation, but it never uses the word church as
referring to a diversity of Christian denominations. We are obliged to confess with
shame that our denominational system is flatly contrary to the Spirit if not the letter
of the New Testament. What we need today is to close our ranks and see how far we
can cooperate in the name of our common Master Jesus Christ in the proclamation of
the one gospel.”
3. From the Chantilly discussion
a) It soon became clear that all taking part were able to accept the basic model
of the church as the body of Christ. Beyond doubt, the fact that it is clearly
anchored in the New Testament made this basic ecumenical consensus easier to
achieve. Thus preference was given to an organic and conciliar view of the church
rather than to static and hierarchical ideas.
b) It was not disputed that as always there exist profound differences among the
churches. Lonning mentioned three points of controversy: the bishop of Rome as
Peter’s successor, the authority of ecumenical councils as against scripture and the
appeal to divine ordinances on behalf of specific forms of the exercise of ministry in
the church. In all three instances, significantly enough, questions of authority, not
to say power, are involved. In New Testament times too there were also already
differences in ecclesiological ideas, for instance between Paul and Peter; these are
wholly compatible with the model of the body of Christ. In all today’s points of
difference it must always be asked how far the diversity is legitimate or how far it
represents a factor that can divide the churches.
c) Finally, the unity of the body of Christ is sacramentally based in the one
eucharist. The one table of the Lord, to which all are called, firmly fixes Christian
unity in the centre of the faith and makes its visible realization a matter of urgency.
126 One God, One Lord, One Spirit
The eucharistic meeting together of Christians round the same table is therefore a
priority. Only then can a full eucharistic vision of the church, such as was outlined
for the first time at Vancouver,3 4 take shape.
d) Ecumenical unity thus means communion of the many in their diversity
within the one body of Christ through participation and sharing. It is not a
deadening uniformity, but rather a live communion of all the baptized, that
represents the visible unity of the churches: the priesthood of all believers. This
idea of unity points to an ecclesiology which is democratically slanted and
conciliar.
e) The unity of the churches through the communion of their members has
ethical and political implications. All Christians are called upon to embrace the
races and classes of the first, second and third worlds in the communion of a
worldwide people of God consisting of Jews and Gentiles. As Moltmann expli-
cated, there has to be a movement towards an ecumenical universality that will
leave the imperialistic shadow of the past behind. This involves a departure from
the West’s claim to have the last word, and an opening up to new centres of
Christendom in Africa, Asia and Latin America.
f) The ecumenical community is on the way to the kingdom of God; it is an
eschatological community of God’s pilgrim people. This insight is a safeguard for
the ecumenical movement against inappropriate triumphalism.
4. The first draft explication
This consists of four parts. After the introduction on the local and the universal
community the second part provides a Trinitarian development of the idea of the
nature of the church as the people of God, the body of Christ and the communion
of saints. Part three discusses the eschatological character of the church as a
eucharistic community, as testifying by diakonia to God’s active and transforming
presence and also as prefiguring the kingdom of God. Finally, part four gives an
interpretation of the four notae ecclesiae.5
5. Additions
The Geneva revised text again supported the explication with biblical and
historical references. It related the ekklesia to the Old Testament kahal , clarified
how the church related to humanity and highlighted the point that the church is
rooted in the working of the Triune God:
1. The New Testament takes up and elaborates the Old Testament concept of a
“chosen generation, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, a peculiar people”, in applying
it to the church and its calling to “show forth praises of him who has called it out of
darkness into his marvellous light” (1 Pet. 2:5, 9; cf. Ex. 19:6), linking thus the
ekklesia of the new covenant with its forerunner and model the kahal of the old. Both
are chosen to serve in their turn as agents of God’s will for humankind as a whole . . .
3. In reflecting on the richness and life-giving power of the grace of God in Jesus
Christ the primitive Christian community realized that this gift was not only for the
salvation of individuals but was intimately connected with the destiny of humanity as
a whole. For them what they called the “ church ” was that part of humanity seized by
the creative and redemptive power of the Spirit of Christ. They also realized that it
was through the preaching and witness of the Christian community that the good
news of salvation was offered to all people till the end of time. It became clear to them
that in this way the church was not only the community which confesses the faith but
is also part of that confession (references).
Ecumenical Aspects of the Third Article 127
4. It was, therefore, impossible for the fathers at Nicea and Constantinople to
proclaim and confess the Triune God and his mighty acts in creation and redemption
without proceeding from there to the church. Accordingly, the confession of Christ’s
cross and resurrection leads to the confession of the Holy Spirit who brings together
and builds up the church on the foundation of the same redemptive act in cross and
resurrection . . . (Ill, BI).
6. From the Stavanger discussion
a) Naturally enough, discussion of the church took most of the time available
for the third article. All in all there was complete agreement on the community-
related approach and its Trinitarian development. But various Western theolo-
gians were concerned that too much independence was being allowed to the church,
and wanted reassurance that any impression of a fourth article of the Creed should
be avoided: the church is wholly dependent on the Holy Spirit and no quality of
independence attaches to it.
b) Against the background of the discussion on baptism, eucharist and minis-
try, more clarity was sought on the relation between church and sacraments. Is it
the sacraments that constitute the church? Some participants had the impression
that the Cret-Berard draft put too much emphasis on the eucharist and did not
devote enough attention to baptism, whereas in the Nicene Creed it is the other
way round.
c) At Stavanger it was stressed that it is not just the body of Christ as a whole
that lives from the gifts of the Spirit, but also each individual one of its members.
The charisms of the Spirit bestowed on each individual lead all in all to a stronger
emphasis on the priesthood of all believers. The church is safeguarded in this way
from clerical tutelage and the laity is allowed to have more say.
d) There was a reminder too in this context of the ethical and social dimensions
of the church. It must be plain that, speaking horizontally, the church gives
prophetic signs — is indeed itself a prophetic sign. It is in the local church that these
effects should first become visible. For as Wolfhart Pannenberg (from Munich)
says, the church catholic is present first and foremost in the local churches and not
in a higher superstructure.
e) Opinion in Stavanger was that the eschatological character of the church
ought also to be brought out more strongly. Here and now the church is already
living in the experience of the future. For Orthodox theologians this view is of
particular importance. Thomas Hopko and the Fitzgeralds from the USA have put
it this way:
Faith and Order speaks much about how the church is “not yet” the kingdom of
God. We do not speak much — or clearly and emphatically enough — about how the
church is “already” the kingdom.
Therefore we need not only “references to the dialectical tension between the
‘already’ and ‘not yet’ of the kingdom”. We also need greater clarity and precision
and depth in regard to how the church is “already” the presence of the kingdom; how
the church is one — and not divided; holy — and not sinful; catholic — and not
fragmented; apostolic — and not unrooted or “charismatically wilful” . . .
7. On the Berlin/ Potsdam explication
a) The structural build-up of the explication has been tightened. The introduc-
tion is now under the sub-title “The Church, Reflecting the Trinitarian Commun-
ion”. This makes the context of the theological argument plain. The Trinitarian
128 One God, One Lord, One Spirit
sequence of the explication is kept — people of God, body of Christ, communion
of saints — and the eschatological elements are integrated with them. The inter-
pretation of the marks of the church is a concise summary of what had previously
been worked out.
b) As to content, the explication begins with the Trinitarian anchoring of the
church: “According to the Creed, there is an indissoluble link between the work of
God in Jesus Christ through the Holy Spirit and the reality of the church”
(III, B.24). “The church has its origin, life and unity in the communion with the
Trinity” (III, B.34). This should finally dispose of the danger of treating the church
as an independent entity.
c) As the body of Christ, the church experiences its deepest reality in eucharistic
communion. Here the eucharist is explicated non-sacramentally as the church’s
praise in the name of humanity and creation and as a call to all people for service
(para. 41). Baptism is now allowed a section on its own, which was wholly absent
from the Chantilly draft and only partially present in the Cret-Berard draft
(§§58-62).
d) On the priesthood of all believers the text now runs: “The royal priesthood of
all the faithful and the diverse ordained ministries serve God in the body of Christ
by the Holy Spirit. The body of Christ thus reflects the active presence of the
Trinity in the world” (para. 40). It may be asked whether these explanatory
comments are in themselves enough to give force to the social and ethical
dimension of the church as the body of Christ. At all events, the section of BEM
dealing with “the Eucharist as communion of the faithful” does already go
further.6
e) The explication of the unity of the church as a communion or fellowship
within the one body of Christ continues to point the way foward. “The unity of all
Christians needs to show itself visibly . . . , and this can be fully accomplished only
in one eucharistic communion” (para. 47). The approach through communio with
God, with each other, with humanity and with creation brings this ecumenical
explication of the church astonishingly close to the communio ecclesiology as
developed in Rome at the end of 1985 by the Roman Catholic Synod of Bishops.7
III. Living our hope
7. Approaches
After the “we believe”, which is valid for all three articles, and the “we confess”
as to the one baptism, the Creed goes on thirdly to “we look forward”, to give
expression to the Christian hope. For being a Christian means living in re-
membrance of the past, in recognition of the present and in hope for what is to
come. To have an appropriate grasp of the present it is essential to be able to look
towards the future and back into the past. As to content, the Creed addresses itself
to two dimensions of Christian hope: the personal dimension, with the “resurrec-
tion of the dead” and the general one, with the “life of the world to come”.
In principle, all the main Christian traditions are in agreement in their eschato-
logical hope. Apart from differing views on points of detail, e.g. on the status of the
dead, there are here — thank God! — no controversies of a fundamental nature, or
such as would divide churches; not even between Christians and Jews. Neverthe-
less, all the Christian traditions, and the Protestant ones in particular, may well be
none the worse for a broadening of their picture of the future — which is frequently
Ecumenical Aspects of the Third Article 129
restricted to individuals and to their own churches — so that they do not lose sight
of the overall aim which is the life of the world to come in the kingdom of God.
Both within and outside the church there are those today who are all the more
radical in calling in question the Christian hope. The big challenges with which
now more than ever the Christian confession of hope has to contend range from a
pervasive resignation and despair all the way to nihilism. What is at stake here is
not simply the reason for the Christian hope and its content but rather its effects on
our present-day life. How can we derive strength from hope in the last things for
our life in the period that precedes them? How can the Christian hope for the
future be communicated in such a way that life today is already transformed?
From this eschatological angle the credibility of Christian transcendence comes
most pressingly under scrutiny.
2. How contemporaries see it
It was unexpectedly difficult to find someone who could present a talk at
Chantilly summarizing Christian eschatology. In the end Ann Loades, an Anglican
who teaches in the Department of Theology at Durham, England, was willing at
short notice to put together some views from New Testament and contemporary
sources, to serve as an introduction to the discussion:
Hope for the future of this world and for the life to come is not given much space in
Western industrial and post-industrial culture; it does not enhance production or
serve the glory of the state, for example, but it does raise difficult and worrying
questions about the meaning of life, and where our trust ultimately lies.
Our imaginations are filled with “worst-case scenarios”. It is not easy to affirm the
austere optimism that Christianity even at its most cautious and minimal invites us to
embrace: to affirm, that is, the possibility of the reality that good can and will prevail
over evil, or more precisely, that God brings good out of blackest evil, that there is a
divine saving judgment for this world.
See John 17:5 where Christ prays: “I pray not that thou shouldest take them out of
the world, but that thou shouldest keep them from the evil.” Looking at what
happened to the person who prayed in that way, and to others who have staked their
lives on the affirmation of certain absolute values, we see the cost of hope. To use
Austin Farrer’s words about Christ’s death, it was a deprivation of life exacted by
malice, accompanied by ignominy, executed with torture.8 Christ became a self-
offering put beyond the possibility of recall, nailed up alive, immovable, dragged
through the breakdown of the body to the breaking of the mind, of which the last
fragments and leavings were verses from the psalms.9
Hope affirms that “God leaves no factors out of his reckoning, nor does he plan for
an imaginary virtue we haven’t got, he plans for the very men we are”.10 Hope believes
in God’s own act of self-justification. Almighty love gives his human creatures a
vestige of his likeness, and “intervenes with incarnation and redemptive sacrifice to
save them from natural perishableness and unnatural perversity”.11 If we can believe
that God acts everywhere, by ceaseless creative energy and providential leading, we
may also say “that he added this above all, that he totally identified himself with one
of his physical creatures and personally acted in and by that creature’s life”.12
The New Testament is in part responding to Psalms such as 115:15-18 and
116:1-9. Can the dead praise God as the dying man, and can we conceive of this
without being too individualistic or anthropomorphic about it (see for example Rom.
8:19-21; 2 Pet. 3:2-13 and Rev. 21:1-6)? Whatever we say here, we have to
acknowledge that language is being strained almost to breaking point. There are
mysteries we cannot absolutely penetrate, whatever the language we use — of re-
surrection, immortality, eternal life, the communion of saints, the vision of God,
130 One God , One Lord, One Spirit
incorporation into Christ etc. The point is that if we are to talk of what God does to
bring good out of blackest evil, it will be mediated through the metaphors and
analogies we use to explain how we think about other people. If we do not get this
right, our eschatological language will be even more of a problem . . .
3. From the Chantilly discussion
On this theme five points in particular received special attention:
a) From 1971 till 1978 the Commission on Faith and Order carried out a seven-
year study process which was rounded off at Bangalore in 1978 with the declar-
ation entitled “A Common Account of Hope”.13 Chapters IV and VII, “Our Hope
in God” and “Hope as the Invitation to Risk” broke new ground.
b) Christian hope has a personal and a community dimension. On the personal
side, its slogan is “the resurrection of the dead”. Here the hope is for the renewed
gift of personal identity beyond death. This means looking squarely at death and
not repressing the thought of death, for in the “resurrection of the dead” a limit is
set to death. Finally, as Paul tells us in 1 Corinthians 15, even death is overcome, as
the “last enemy”, and is brought within God’s creative power for life. Hence, as
Frieda Haddad has said, even in the midst of the experience of death in Beirut,
Job’s confession holds good: “I know that my redeemer lives” (19:25).
c) It is particularly important to develop the community dimension of Christian
hope, for that is a safeguard against narrowness and egocentricity. It includes
remembrance of the “cloud of witnesses”: all who died in Christ are gathered
together into the communion of saints. It also includes the “subsumption” of
human history into the celebration of the kingdom of God. But within this there is
also the transformation of the earth and the cosmos in God’s new creation. “The
life of the world to come” will embrace not less but more than the transient world:
it will embrace the whole creation, which will have attained to its fulfilment.
d) “The resurrection of the dead”, “the communion of saints” and “the
kingdom of God” are metaphors , word-pictures that attempt to express verbally
the reality of God’s future. As we are concerned here with a future sphere which is
veiled from human experience, it is appropriate, and indeed necessary, to use
analogical and metaphorical turns of speech. These give assurance about what is
yet to come to people living today; they anticipate God’s future in the power of
hope, but they must be recognized as distinct from the realization of that future.
e) The Christian hope leads to a dynamic not of passive endurance but of active
expectation. In the expectation of what is to come in what is already present there
lies an attitude of anticipation. This shows itself both in acceptance of the present
and opposition to it, and extends through ever-widening circles to mark out a path
for hope in the midst of the sufferings of this present age.
4. The first draft “explication”
This has four parts:
I. The church as a communion of hope
II. Jesus Christ — the hope of the world
III. The oneness and wholeness of Christian hope
a) kingdom of God
b) resurrection
c) new heaven and earth
IV. Living out our hope
Ecumenical Aspects of the Third Article 131
5. Additions
The April 1985 Geneva revision prefixed to the concluding part on “living out
our hope” a section which summarizes some “constitutive elements of the apos-
tolic faith” and highlights them as adequate grounds for the “new perspective” in
the midst of our world under threat:
To believe in the life-giving and transforming power of the Holy Spirit, to be the
koinonia of God’s people in Christ’s church, sent to all people to proclaim and live the
good news of salvation until the end of history, to become through baptism for
the forgiveness of sins partakers of the new life of the risen Lord and to receive
thereby the assurance of sharing with all creation in the life of the world to come — all
these are constitutive elements of the apostolic faith throughout the ages. They give
Christians also today an unshakable foundation and new perspective for their
involvement in the affairs of this world. This finds its central expression in our
Christian hope in the midst of a threatened and finite world. (Ill, D. 14).
6. From the Stavanger discussion
a) As a whole the explication of the Christian hope did not receive undivided
approval. Study group 3 commented as follows on the Cret-Berard draft: “The
final section on the life of the world to come is rather weak. The churches will want
to understand that. Thus scriptural ’loci need to be given” (C.I,6).
b) In connection with the kingdom of God it is noted that “ cosmic transform-
ation” is not sufficiently highlighted. Like personal resurrection it is to be seen as a
consequence deriving from the death and resurrection of Christ. For the raising of
Jesus Christ from the dead embraces equally the personal and the cosmic dimen-
sion.
c) The unqualified rejection of the idea of restoration ( apokatastasis : “rejected
by official doctrinal statements of all churches”) is felt to be inappropriately
brusque. The English-speaking theologian Martin Cressey commented that his
own church in England, the United Reformed Church, had produced a doctrinal
statement which leaves open some possibility of believing in universal salvation,
even though it in no way endorses this.
d) As regards the consequences of Christian hope for life today , the opinion was
expressed that the world to come is relegated too much to the future instead of
being understood as God’s future arriving in the present. “It is also possible to
experience the world to come already in the present.” The accent should lie on the
consequences of Christian hope in the future for present-day life.
e) Finally, it was complained that the effects of Christian hope for the present
were being developed only personally, socially and politically. “Yet the imagery of
the eschaton — the banquet of the Lamb, the New Jerusalem, the vision of God —
presents the enjoyment of God in the communion of saints as the fulfilment of our
human destiny. Thus, our present participation in contemplative vision and joy in
God is a further consequence of eschatological living” (ad. §74).
7. On the Berlin/ Potsdam explication
This took up the Stavanger critique at least in three respects.
a) It stressed the cosmic dimension of hope in the kingdom of God in the
sentence, “at the same time Christ’s death and resurrection and the coming of the
Spirit point forward to the final transformation of the cosmos” (III, C.II, para. 67).
b) The commentary on the question of apokatastasis (restoration) of all things is
now made fuller and more open (in para. 69): it introduces the possibility of more
132 One God, One Lord, One Spirit
positive reflection on the future of all human beings and things in the kingdom of
God, beyond official ecclesiastical doctrinal statements which reject the idea:
. . . Christian doctrine has to do justice both to the unlimited intention of God’s
saving love, but also to the many New Testament warnings that eternal damnation is
possible. The tension between these different emphases in the biblical witness should
not be dissolved by rationalizing one way or the other, but should be taken as
indicating the openness of history.
c) Joy has now found its place among the aspects of Christian hope: “Our hope
for this life and this world is grounded in, and will find its consummation in the
vision and joy of God in the communion of saints” (para. 76).
Here too we may once again ask whether this explication adequately brings out
the nature of Christian hope in the present life. There likewise remains much to be
desired as regards the supporting biblical contexts. But the explication to date does
make this much undoubtedly clear: we have a rich inheritance as regards the basis
and content of Christian hope and this inheritance has latent in it the power to
cope with the present challenges from our world under threat: una fiducia — una
caritas — unica spes. 1 4
NOTES
1. To date, the most far-reaching document relating to this rapprochment is the Klingen-
thal Memorandum compiled in the Commission on Faith and Order and entitled “The
Filioque Clause in Ecumenical Perspective”, in “Spirit of God, Spirit of Christ:
Ecumenical Reflections on the Filioque controversy”, L. Vischer ed., Faith and Order
Paper No. 103, Geneva, WCC, 1981, pp.3-18. “Apostolic Faith Today: a Handbook for
Study”, H.-G. Link ed., Faith and Order Paper No. 124, Geneva, WCC, 1985,
pp.231-244.
2. I use this term for simplicity and greater readability, always meaning the text of the
Nicene-Constantinopolitan Creed of 381.
3. V. supra.
4. Cf. Gathered for Life, official report of the Sixth Assembly of the WCC, Vancouver
1983, David Gill ed., Geneva, WCC, 1983, pp.44f.
5. V. supra.
6. “Baptism, Eucharist and Ministry”, Faith and Order Paper No. Ill, Geneva, WCC,
1982, Eucharist para. 20, p.14.
7. Church — under the word — celebrates the mysteries of Christ — for the salvation of
the world: esp. C. the church as “communio” and 7. ecumenical community.
8. Saving Belief, London, Hodder & Stoughton, 1964, p. 103.
9. Lord I Believe, London, SPCK, 1955, p. 93.
10. Said or Sung, Faith Press, 1960, p. 19.
1 1. Faith and Logic , ed. B. Mitchell, Allen & Unwin, 1957, p. 98.
12. The Brink of Mystery, ed. C. Conti, London, SPCK, 1976, pp. 109-110.
13. “Bangalore 1978: Sharing in One Hope”, Faith and Order Paper No. 92, Geneva, WCC,
1978, pp. 1—1 1 . “Apostolic Faith Today”, op. cit., pp. 84-92. The statement has the
following sections: (I) thanksgiving; (II) voices of hope; (III) hopes encounter hopes;
(IV) our hope in God; (V) the church: a communion of hope; (VI) shared hopes in the
face of the common future; (VII) hope as the invitation to risk.
14. One faith — one love — sole hope.
Appendices
APPENDIX 1
The Participants
a) 14-22 November 1984, Kottayam, South India
Dr Roberta Bondi (United Methodist Church), Atlanta, USA
Rev. Janet Crawford (Church of the Province of New Zealand), Dunedin, New Zealand
Very Rev. Dr George Dragas (Ecumenical Patriarchate of Constantinople), Durham,
England
Dr K.M. George (Orthodox Syrian Church of the East), Kottayam, Kerala, India
Metropolitan Paulos Mar Gregorios (Orthodox Syrian Church of the East), Kottayam,
Kerala, India
Rev. Dr B.H. Jackaya (United Evangelical Lutheran Churches in India), Kusavankundi,
Madurai, India
Rev. Dr O.V. Jathanna (Church of South India), Balmatta, Mangalore, India
Rev. Dr M.J. Joseph (Mar Thoma Syrian Church), Kottayam, Kerala, India
Ms Marianne Katoppo (Reformed Church), Jakarta, Indonesia
Fr Joseph Koikakudy (Roman Catholic Church), Kottayam, Kerala, India
Dr Ulrich Kuhn (Federation of Evangelical Churches in the GDR: Lutheran), Vienna,
Austria
Fr Jacob Kollaparambil (Roman Catholic Church), Kottayam, Kerala, India
Dr Moises Mendez (Baptist Convention), Mexico City, Mexico
Metropolitan Mar Osthathios (Orthodox Syrian Church), Kottayam, Kerala, India
Rev. Dr Rienzi Perera (Church of Sri Lanka), Pilimatalaw, Sri Lanka
Prof. Dietrich Ritschl (Evangelical Church in Germany: Reformed), Heidelberg, FRG
Prof. V.C. Samuel (Orthodox Syrian Church of the East), Bangalore, India
Miss Vimla Subaiya (Church of North India), Calcutta, India
Prof. Rowan Williams (Church of England), Cambridge, England
Faith and Order Secretariat
Rev. Dr Gunther Gassmann (Evangelical Church in Germany: Lutheran)
Rev. Dr Hans-Georg Link (Evangelical Church in Germany: United)
Mrs Renate Sbeghen
136 One God , One Lord, One Spirit
b) 3-10 January 1985, Chantilly, France
Prof. Torleiv Austad (Church of Norway), Oslo, Norway
President Edward Czajko (United Evangelical Church), Warsaw, Poland
Prof. John Deschner (United Methodist Church), Dallas, USA
Dr Hermann Goltz (Federation of Evangelical Churches in the GDR: Lutheran), Halle,
GDR
Ms Frieda Haddad (Greek Orthodox Patriarchate of Antioch and All the East), Beirut,
Lebanon
Rev. Prof. Thomas Hopko (Orthodox Church in America), Tuckahoe, NY, USA
Prof. Sung-Hee Lee (Presbyterian Church of Korea), Taegu, Korea
Dr Ann L. Loades (Church of England), Durham, England
Prof. Per Lonning (Church of Norway), Strasbourg, France
Prof. Werner Loser (Roman Catholic Church), Frankfurt/Main, FRG
Prof. Nicolas Lossky (Patriarchate of Moscow), Paris, France
Dr Lauree Hersch Meyer (Church of the Brethren), Oak Brook, IL, USA
Prof. Jurgen Moltmann (Evangelical Church in Germany: Reformed), Tubingen, FRG
Rev. Dr M.F.G. Parmentier (Old Catholic Church), Hilversum, Holland
Prof. Janos D. Pasztor (Reformed Church in Hungary), Debrecen, Hungary
Rev. Michael Putney (Roman Catholic Church), Rome, Italy
Dr Michael Root (Lutheran Church in America), Columbia, SC, USA
Rev. Dr Horace O. Russell (Jamaica Baptist Union), Kingston, Jamaica
Ms Veronica Swai (Evangelical Lutheran Church in Tanzania), Moshi, Tanzania
Prof. Evangelos Theodorou (Church of Greece), Athens, Greece
Rev. Fr Jean M.R. Tillard (Roman Catholic Church), Ottawa, Canada
Dr Wolfgang Ullmann (Federation of Evangelical Churches in the GDR: Lutheran), Berlin,
GDR
Prof. Livery Voronov (Russian Orthodox Church), Leningrad, USSR
Faith and Order Secretariat
Rev. Dr Gunther Gassmann (Evangelical Church in Germany: Lutheran)
Rev. Dr Hans-Georg Link (Evangelical Church in Germany: United)
Mrs Renate Sbeghen
Frere Max Thurian (Reformed Church in France), Taize, France
Vikar Dietrich Werner (coopted) (Evangelical Church in Germany: Lutheran), Oldenburg,
FRG
c) 14-22 March 1985, Kinshasa, Zaire
Rev. Fr John K. A. Aniagwu (Roman Catholic Church), Ibadan, Nigeria
Dr Dan-Ilie Ciobotea (Romanian Orthodox Church), Bossey/Geneva, Switzerland
Prof. Sigurd Daecke (Evangelical Church in Germany: Lutheran), Aachen, FRG
Rev. Dr Efefe Elonda (Church of Christ in Zaire — Community of Disciples), Mbandaka,
Zaire
Prof. Alasdair Heron (Church of Scotland), Erlangen, FRG
Fr Jonah Lwanga (Greek Orthodox Patriarchate of Alexandria), Nairobi, Kenya
Appendices
137
Dr Andre Mampila (Roman Catholic Church), Kinshasa-Gombe, Zaire
Mgr Monsengwo Pasinya (Roman Catholic Church), Kisangani, Zaire
Rev. Dr Kjell Ove Nilsson (Church of Sweden), Uppsala, Sweden
Prof. Peder Norgaard-Hojen (Church of Denmark), Copenhagen, Denmark
Mrs Rosemary Nthamburi (Methodist Church), Nairobi, Kenya
Prof. Owango-Welo (Kimbanguist Church), Kinshasa, Zaire
Mrs Mary Tanner (Church of England), London, England
Prof. Gunter Wagner (Baptist Church), Riischlikon, ZH, Switzerland
Prof. Geoffrey Wainwright (Methodist Church of Great Britain), Durham, NC, USA
Dr Yemba Kekumba (Church of Christ in Zaire — Methodist Community), Kinshasa,
Zaire
Faith and Order Secretariat
Rev. Dr Gunther Gassmann (Evangelical Church in Germany: Lutheran)
Rev. Dr Hans-Georg Link (Evangelical Church in Germany: United)
Mrs Renate Sbeghen
Interpreters
Rev. Heinz Birchmeier, Geneva
Citizen Kampuna S., Kinshasa
APPENDIX 2
The Authors
Dr Dan-Ilie Ciobotea
Romanian Orthodox Church
Professor at the Ecumenical Institute Bossey
Celigny/Geneva, Switzerland
Rev. Dr Gunther Gassmann
Evangelical Church in Germany: Lutheran
Director of the Secretariat of the Commission on Faith and Order
Geneva, Switzerland
Rev. Dr Hans-Georg Link
Evangelical Church in Germany: United
Executive Secretary in the Secretariat of the Commission on Faith and Order
Geneva, Switzerland
Prof. Dietrich Ritschl
Evangelical Church in Germany: Reformed
Professor of Systematic and Ecumenical Theology
Heidelberg, Federal Republic of Germany
APPENDIX 3
Faith and Order Publications on Apostolic Faith Today”
“Towards a Confession of the Common Faith”, P. Duprey and L. Vischer eds, Faith and
Order Paper No. 100, 1980.
“Spirit of God, Spirit of Christ: Ecumenical Reflections on the Filioque Controversy”,
L. Vischer ed., Faith and Order Paper No. 103, 1981.
“Confessing Our Faith Around the World I”, C.S. Song ed.. Faith and Order Paper No. 104,
1980.
Does Chalcedon Divide or Unite? Towards Convergence in Orthodox Christology,
P. Gregorios, W.H. Lazareth and N.A. Nissiotis eds, 1981.
“Towards Visible Unity. Commission on Faith and Order, Lima 1982. Vol. I: Minutes and
Addresses”, Section V: Towards the Common Expression of the Apostolic Faith Today,
M. Kinnamon ed.. Faith and Order Paper No. 112, 1982, pp.90-100.
“Towards Visible Unity. Commission on Faith and Order, Lima 1982. Vol. II: Study Papers
and Reports”, Part I: Towards the Common Expression of the Apostolic Faith Today,
M. Kinnamon ed., Faith and Order Paper No. 113, 1982, pp.3-119.
“The Roots of Our Common Faith: Faith in the Scriptures and in the Early Church”,
H.-G. Link ed., Faith and Order Paper No. 119, 1984.
“Confessing Our Faith Around the World II”, H.-G. Link ed., Faith and Order Paper
No. 120, 1983.
“Confessing Our Faith Around the World III: the Caribbean and Central America”,
H.-G. Link ed., Faith and Order Paper No. 123, 1984.
“Apostolic Faith Today. A Handbook for Study”, H.-G. Link ed.. Faith and Order Paper
No. 124, 1985.
“Confessing Our Faith Around the World IV: South America”, H.-G. Link ed.. Faith and
Order Paper No. 126 , 1985.
"How do ecumenical statements actually come into being? Is it not
important for their assessment to have a certain idea of the several steps
within a complex dialogue process which lead to the formulation of
ecumenical reports and declarations? This is why we have developed
this volume, as a first attempt to glimpse into the 'workshop' of the Faith
and Order Commission of the World Council of Churches.
"In this book we present the initial stages of the elaboration of a
common ecumenical explication of the Creed of Nicea-Constantinople
of 381 . This explication forms a central part of our study 'Towards the
Common Expression of the Apostolic Faith Today'."
The book consists of an introductory section on "Fullness of Faith",
followed by the three parts, dealing with the First, Second and Third
Articles of the Ecumenical Creed. With contributions by Dr Dan-llie
Ciobotea, professor at the Ecumenical Institute, Bossey, near Geneva,
and Prof. Dietrich Ritschi ' professor of systematic and ecumenical
theology in Heidelberg, Federal Republic of Germany.
The Rev. Dr Hans-Georg Link was until recently an executive secretary
in the Faith and Order secretariat of the World Council of Churches.
Live Music
Archive
Librivox
Free Audio
Metropolitan Museum
Cleveland
Museum of Art
Internet
Arcade
Console Living Room
Open Library
American
Libraries
TV News
Understanding
9/11